| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Sep 2006 : Column 1992W—continued
(2) what the cause was of the errors in SFR 32/2005. [86028]
Jim Knight: Up to and including 2005, data on non-core teacher assessments was collected as an aggregate value in a variety of formats including paper forms. For 2006 NAA have changed the data collection so that all teacher assessment data including non-core is collected at an individual pupil level. The data is collected electronically alongside core subjects using the Common Transfer File format (CTF). The CTF is the same standard that is used for transferring pupil data from one school to another. The change to pupil level data has also reduced the burden on schools by removing the need to transcribe and manipulate the source data. The NAA supports the Protocol on Data Sharing and Rationalisation in the Schools Sector and recognises a collective responsibility to minimise the burdens of data collection on schools and local authorities and to ensure that data collected is used effectively to support individual learning, whole school improvement and system-wide capacity building.
Errors can occur at any stage of the data collection process. Our investigations indicate that most of the errors in SFR 32/2005 were in the data supplied by schools or due to data being supplied in the wrong format.
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 10 July 2006, Official Report, column 1462W, on teachers, how many statistical first releases published by his Department (a) were found to contain errors following their publication and (b) had corrections published on his Department's website subsequent to their initial publication in each year since 2000. [86027]
Jim Knight: The information requested is shown in the following table for the years 2003 to 2006(1).
1 The information is not readily available for errors corrected before July 2003 due to the functionality of the Department's website (information on updates and their nature is only stored from July 2003)
| Errors and Corrections in Statistical First Releases (SFRs) from 2003( 1) to 2006( 2) | |||||||
| Total number of SFRs published | Number of SFRs with errors detected( 3) | Number of errors( 4) | Of which, errors were corrected in: | ||||
| 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | ||||
| (1) 2003 figures only include errors corrected from 1 July 2003. (2) 2006 figures only include errors corrected before 31 July 2006. (3) All errors that are detected in Statistical First Releases are corrected and re-published on the Department's Research and Statistics Gateway (4) For the purposes of this question, an error is defined as an occurrence where figures have been updated in a statistical first release due to problems detected with the underlying data or with the methodology. The term 'error' does not include changes to figures that are a normal part of the Department's cycle of checking data with providers (leading to provisional, revised and final figures) (5 )Total SFRs published to the 31 July 2006 | |||||||
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers employed in primary schools qualified via (a) a teaching degree, (b) a one year post-graduate certificate in education course and (c) other methods in each of the last five years. [89051]
Jim Knight: The following table provides the number of newly qualified full and part-time regular teachers employed in nursery and primary schools in each March between 2000 and 2004, having qualified in the previous calendar year, by method of qualification. 2004 is the latest year available.
| Newly qualified( 1) full and part-time regular teachers in service in the maintained nursery and primary sector in each March 2000-2004, having qualified in the previous year, by method of qualification | ||||
| Undergraduate( 2) | Postgraduate( 3) | Other( 4) | Total | |
| (1) Includes teachers gaining qualified teacher status in England. (2) Degree level routes to achieving QTS, eg BEd. (3) Includes all post graduate routes to achieving QTS eg PGCE. Also includes those qualifying through SCITTS and the Open University. (4) Includes employment based routes to QTS and others whose method of qualification is not recorded. (5) Provisional estimates. (The number of teachers in service for these years may be underestimated due to the late receipt of service information.) Source: Database of Teacher Records | ||||
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the average number of teachers who regularly watch Teachers’ TV; and what the annual cost was of Teachers’ TV since its inception. [89100]
Jim Knight: Teachers’ TV aims to help raise standards in classrooms by helping to share good practice, support continuing professional development, offer classroom resources, and provide education news and information. The annual cost for Teachers’ TV is c. £17.5 million.
The channel’s target audience includes teachers, school leaders, teaching assistants and school governors. We currently estimate that 280,000 households watch Teachers TV on a monthly basis. Of these, almost 90,000 are from the school work force. At least 637,000 people watched Teachers’ TV (on digital TV) between launch and the end of July 2005.
Audience measurement figures for the year ending 31 July 2006 will be published in early 2007.
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the value for money of the Teachers’ TV service; and if he will make a statement. [89101]
Jim Knight: Teachers’ TV aims to help raise standards in classrooms by helping to share good practice, support continuing professional development, offer classroom resources, and provide education news and information. The channel's target audience includes teachers, school leaders, teaching assistants and school governors.
The Teachers’ TV Board of Governors, an advisory non-departmental public body, meets monthly and its role includes holding the Teachers’ TV supplier to account for the public funds it receives via an annual performance review.
In its annual report, published in December 2005, the board of governors stated that ‘at an average cost per viewer per programme watched of £2.70, Teachers’ TV is a cost effective way of supporting CPD delivery to the schools workforce’.
Tuition Fees
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the overall cost to public funds of increasing tuition fees by (a) £1,000 and (b) £100 if they are deferred until graduation and then repaid over (i) five and (ii) 10 years. [81112]
Bill Rammell [holding answer 29 June 2006]: The costs of fee loans (steady state in 2006/07 terms) were published on 10 November 2005, Official Report, column 22WS. For an average fee of £3,010 the costs would be around £620 million and for an average fee of £3,910 the costs could be upwards of £810 million(1). In each case, we have used our existing assumptions: that a tuition fee loan is available to meet the full cost of tuition fees, that the total cost of providing tuition fee loans over their lifetime is 33 per cent. of their face value and that 80 per cent. of eligible students take them up. These estimates are approximate as significant changes in the fee level would be likely to have an effect on assumptions. The Government's policy is to have income- contingent loans where repayments are tied to salary (i.e. graduates make repayments of 9 per cent. of salary in excess of £15,000 per annum) and the repayment period is not pre-determined, so estimates based on fixed repayment periods of five and 10 years have not been made. The maximum fee cannot be raised by more than inflation until 2 January 2010 and only then with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
(1 )Cost estimates rounded to nearest £10 million.
Working Together
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 13 July 2006, Official Report, columns 1989-90W, on working together, if he will list the respondents who (a) agreed or strongly agreed that the Government should attempt to set out a clearer policy for professionals including the health service and youth workers on when to share information with social services and the police to protect sexually active children from harm and abuse and (b) agreed that there was a case for information always being shared in some circumstances; and if he will make a statement. [87312]
Beverley Hughes: The information requested has been placed in the House Libraries.
International Development
G8 Summit (St. Petersburg)
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he made to his G8 counterparts on putting (a) Darfur and (b) Gaza on the agenda for the G8 summit in St. Petersburg. [87471]
Mr. McCartney: I have been asked to reply.
The UK takes every opportunity to press our international partners about the situation in Darfur and Gaza. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported back to the House on the G8 Summit in a statement on 18 July 2006, Official Report, column 153. In it he said he had discussed Sudan with several G8 leaders and with Kofi Annan. They agreed that the situation in Darfur continued to be unacceptable and that there was a need for a UN force to deploy quickly.
At the G8 summit, there were long discussions on the situation in the Middle East, including Gaza. Leaders agreed a statement, which outlines the steps required of both sides to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of violence in the Middle East, and to lay the foundations for a more permanent solution in the region. The UK has pushed strongly for a Temporary International Mechanism to help meet the basic needs of Palestinians. The European Community has committed €105 million to it. G8 leaders decided that the mechanism should be expanded immediately to provide wider assistance to the people of Gaza. We are working closely with the Quartet and others to ensure that this happens.
Northern Ireland
MI5
Mrs. Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether an agreement has been reached on responsibility for the costs of (a) operations of MI5 in the Province and (b) its new headquarters; and if he will make a statement. [87976]
Mr. McNulty: I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on 19 July 2006, Official Report, column 475.
Work and Pensions
Health and Safety (Temperatures)
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what guidance the Health and Safety Executive has issued on the acceptable minimum and maximum temperatures in (a) primary and (b) secondary school classrooms; [88786]
(2) what guidance the Health and Safety Executive has issued on minimum and maximum temperatures on school buses. [88816]
Mrs. McGuire: I shall answer both of these questions together and would also refer the hon. Member to the responses given to her questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on 25 July 2006, Official Report, columns 1434-435W.
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require employers to provide reasonable working temperatures for employees in indoor workplaces, including those working in schools. The Regulations are accompanied by an Approved Code of Practice and guidance.
Since April 2005, the HSE has made available general guidance on temperatures and thermal comfort for all indoor workplaces on the HSE website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/thermal/index.htm. This guidance applies to employees and staff working in schools, but excludes transport such as school buses.
Minimum temperatures for classrooms are given as 18ºC in the Education (School Premises) Regulations, SI No2, 1999, which are a responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills. DfES has recently issued guidance about maximum and minimum temperatures in classrooms on the popular questions website: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/popularquestions/ This explains that:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |