|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
the phasing and financial requirements of school buildings across the whole programme.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many (a) local education authorities and (b) schools have participated in Building Schools for the Future since its introduction; and in how many projects (i) a contract has been signed and (ii) construction has begun. 
Jim Knight: 39 local authorities and 353 schools have participated in Building Schools for the Future since its introduction. The first contract was signed in June in Bristol and construction has already started in that authority.
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how schools will be assessed on the promotion of community cohesion; and what steps will be taken in respect of schools which do not reach the required standards. 
Jim Knight: Subject to the passage of the Education and Inspections Bill which is currently before Parliament, a duty will be placed on the governing bodies of maintained schools to promote community cohesion. This will be accompanied by a duty on the Chief Inspector of Schools to report, as part of routine school inspections, on the contribution made by schools in this respect. Inspectors will judge this by assessing the extent to which learners contribute to community cohesion and the effectiveness of the links made by the school with other providers, services, employers and other organisations to promote well-being and community cohesion. Where inspectors identify underperformance, they will make recommendations, to which the school will be expected to respond. School Improvement Partners will challenge and support the school in making any necessary improvements and parents will be informed about progress through the School Profile. Where the underperformance extends to other aspects of the school's work, there may be circumstances in which inspectors return to monitor the school's progress in securing improvement.
Jim Knight: The Department regularly receives correspondence about the teaching of creationism in schools. Most express concern about the possibility that creationism could be taught in the science curriculum.
The Governments view is that creationism is not a recognised scientific theory and should not be taught in the science curriculum. There are, however, opportunities to discuss it in religious education, where pupils learn about different beliefs and faiths.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made towards the Governments target that every school pupil has enterprise education by 2006; and what estimate he has made of the total proportion of school pupils receiving enterprise education. 
There is no such target. In September 2005 we began a three-year strategy to enable all
secondary schools to develop a new focus on enterprise education. A QCA survey in March 2006 found that over 90 per cent. of schools have enterprise in their school development plans, or will have next year, and nearly 90 per cent. have, or will have next year, a written school policy on enterprise. So we have made good progress, and we have established the national Schools Enterprise Education Network to help all schools to make further progress.
Dr. Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which higher education institutions he and Ministers from his Department have visited since 7 July 2005 to discuss issues surrounding extremism. 
Bill Rammell: The Secretary of State for Education and Skills and his ministerial team have undertaken a large number of visits to higher education institutions in the period since 7 July 2005. There have been a number of discussions with university staff around issues of extremism on campus, often as part of a broader agenda. For that reason, we cannot separately identify the higher education institutions involved.
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance his Department has issued to schools on permissible tests of religious observance in their admissions processes. 
The new School Admissions Code, subject to parliamentary approval, will come into force in February 2007 and supersede the existing Code of Practice. The draft code, on which we are currently consulting, contains detailed guidelines to faith schools on determining fair and equitable admission arrangements including faith-based oversubscription criteria and determining religious observance.
The participation expenditure for further education and the participation unit of funding per full-time equivalent student in each year from 1997-98 to 2007-08 are provided in the following tables. The figures for 2005-06 reflect plans as outturn is not yet known on unit funding.
|Table 1: Further education participation expenditure (cash)|
|Total FE participation( 1) (£ million)|
|(1) FE participation funding excludes funding for colleges for other types of participation, raising standards, capacity building and capital. These are included in total FE funding, eg when calculating the 48 per cent. increase in overall FE funding. Note: Participation figures shown include some targeted funds (Teachers Pension Scheme, Teachers Pay Initiative and some Standards Fund resources) which were consolidated in 2003-04; and LSC funding for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. They do not include UfI/Learndirect or Personal Community Development/Adult Community Learning.|
Prior to 2001-02, the figures quoted represent expenditure by the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), and we cannot disaggregate at a lower level than this, therefore these figures may include some administration and non-participation costs.
|Table 2: FE participation unit of funding per full-time equivalent student|
|Funding for participation (cash) (£)||Real terms index|
|(1) 1997-98 only, includes assumed additional employer contributions. (2) From 1999/2000 onwards, excludes 18,500 FTE Higher National Certificate/Diploma students and associated funding which was transferred to HEFCE. (3) From 2001-02 onwards, includes funding for Teacher Pay Initiative, Teachers Pension Scheme, and some Standards Funds resources. (4) A technical change to the measurement of FTEs in 2003-04 means that there is a break in the series. This does not affect total funding, but does result in a larger estimate of FTEs, and so a small reduction in the unit funding estimate. Both figures are available for 2003-04 as shown to indicate the difference. It also means that the real terms index must be re-based in 2003-04 and a separate series shown from this point onwards.|
Unit funding per full time equivalent (FTE) in further education between 1997-98 and 2005-06 in real terms is provided in the table above, with the real terms index, based with 1997-98 as 100. This information is based on the departmental annual report 2006 (DAR 2006) and all other footnotes from the version of this table in DAR 2006 also apply.
The change in figures for 2003-04 does not represent a reduction in unit costs. Instead it represents a change in the method of measuring FTE, meaning that learners are counted from October rather than November.
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information his Department collects on (a) capital spending in teaching facilities for nursing and other healthcare courses and (b) spending on training lecturers in nursing and healthcare by universities in England since 1997. 
Bill Rammell: On (a) the Department has access to data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) on depreciation, including depreciation on capitalised equipment (but not buildings), by subject area. For nursing and paramedical studies in publicly-funded higher education institutions in England the figures are set out in table 1.
|Academic year||Depreciation (£000)|
| Source: HESA Finance Statistics Return, Table 6, Cost centre 5|
HESA figures for overall capital expenditure on non-residential and non-catering operations in publicly-funded higher education institutions in England do not distinguish subject areas but they do show expenditure on buildings and equipment. The figures are set out in table 2.
| Source: HESA Finance Statistics Return, Table 7, Head 2|
On (b) the Department has access to data on staff costs by subject area but the figures do not distinguish staff training costs. The costs for nursing and paramedical studies in publicly-funded higher education institutions in England are set out in table 3.
|Academic year||Academic staff costs||Other staff costs|
| Source: HESA Finance Statistics Return, Table 6, Cost centre 5|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|