Replies to questions sent by the Committee
to the Department for Education and Skills
1. NEW SCHOOL
FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS
FROM 2006-07
Question 1.1 The consultation documents issued
by the DfES indicate a new funding arrangement in which the Department
and Schools Forums will have an enhanced role with regard to schools'
funding. The local authority role will be reduced and made subject
to significantly greater oversight and control by the other two
players. Is this a correct reading of the consultation papers?
At present the majority of funding for schools
is provided through the Local Government Finance System: each
local authority sets a Schools Budget, which is funded through
a mixture of Revenue Support Grant, Business Rates and Council
Tax. The local authority decides, in consultation with its Schools
Forum, how its Schools Budget is to be divided between the budget
for central spending on school provision and individual school
budgets; and how individual school budgets should be calculated.
Under the new arrangements, local authorities
will receive funding for their schools through the Dedicated Schools
Grant, allocations of which will be determined by the Department.
While the Dedicated Schools Grant will have to be spent on schools,
local authorities will be free to add to it from their own locally
raised resources, should they choose to do so. In addition, local
authorities will have the scope, with the agreement of their Schools'
Forums, to combine elements of their school budgets, financed
through the Dedicated Schools Grant, with other budgets, to continue
to support multi agency arrangements in support of the Children's
agenda as set out in "Every Child Matters".
The Department will therefore be largely responsible
for setting the level of spending on schools in each local authority
area from 2006-07 onwards. However, under the existing policy
of passporting, almost all authorities passed on the increases
in school funding that were set by the Department each year: so
the introduction of the Dedicated Schools Grant marks only a marginal
increase in the control exercised by the Department. Nonetheless,
what the creation of the Dedicated Schools Grant does achieve
is a welcome clarification of the role of central government and
local authorities in setting the overall level of schools' funding
for each authority.
Local authorities will continue to be responsible
for allocating funding between their schools, consulting their
Schools Forums, as they do now. The new arrangements will see
a number of decisions that are currently taken by the Secretary
of State left to local discretion: the mechanisms for local decision
making are discussed in the answer to question 1.3, and will only
involve the Secretary of State in future where it is not possible
to reach local agreement. In the future, therefore, we expect
there to be less central decision making over the detailed operation
of local formulae than there is now.
Question 1.2 What aspects of the existing
Formula Spending Share method are thought to be least robust,
given the Department's acceptance that it will need to consider
a possible reform of the existing allocation system?
The consultation document on the modified method
of allocating the new Dedicated Schools Grant, published on 5
August 2005, recognises that the current level of spend on schools
in each authority is not purely determined by the Schools Formula
Spending Share. In the current system, authorities choose the
level of resources to spend on schools and thus both historical
and more recent decisions are factors in determining the level
of spend in any authority. The proposed modified method of distribution
recognises that current spend does not fully reflect any formula,
and it is important to allocate future increases in a way that
reflects pressures and the Government's commitment to ensuring
year on year increases in funding per pupil for all authorities.
We think that aspects of the current formula are robust, but we
recognise that the current position does not match any formula.
We will be consulting with our partners during 2006-07 and 2007-08
on what implications this has for funding in the longer term.
Question 1.3 What formal status will Schools
Forums be given within the new arrangements for determining school
funding and will they receive any funding to support their work?
Will Schools Forums be able to over-ride or veto the decisions
of a local authority about any aspect of school funding? Or will
the local authority make all final decisions?
Schools Forums will be given new powers under
the new arrangements to approve certain proposals put forward
by their local authority. Specifically, their new powers will
be:
(a) to agree minor changes to the operation
of the minimum funding guarantee, where the outcome would otherwise
be anomalous, and where not more than 20% of the authority's schools
are affected;
(b) to agree to the level of school specific
contingency at the beginning of each year;
(c) to agree arrangements for combining elements
of the centrally retained Schools Budget with elements of other
local authority and other agencies' budgets to create a combined
children's services budget in circumstances where there is a clear
benefit for schools and pupils in doing so; and
(d) in exceptional circumstances only:
(i) to agree an increase in the amount of expenditure
a local authority can retain from its Schools Budget above that
allowed for in the regulations;
(ii) to agree an increase in centrally retained
expenditure within the Schools Budget once a multi-year funding
period has begun; and
(iii) to agree changes to an authority's funding
formula once it has been announced prior to the start of a multi-year
funding period.
These powers relate to areas where we are providing
some flexibility for authorities to move away from the requirements
of the school funding regulations in order to take account of
specific local circumstances: in the past it has only been possible
to exercise such flexibilities with the approval of the Secretary
of State. The Government believes it is right that it should be
possible to agree to the exercise of these flexibilities locally
if a consensus can be reached. Where that is not the case, the
authority will retain the right to apply to the Secretary of State
for a decision: Schools Forums will not have the right to over-ride
or veto local authority decisions.
Funding for Schools Forums is a legitimate charge
against a local authority's Schools Budget. The Department is
currently working on good practice guidance on Schools Forums
which will encourage authorities to provide an appropriate budget
for their Forums. If the provision of additional funding for the
Schools Forum would cause the authority to breach its central
expenditure limit, it will be possible for the Forum to agree
to a higher limit, as set out above.
Question 1.4 Is it correct to see the funding
arrangements for 2006-07 and 2007-08 as, in effect, using the
previous year's schools spending total (ie spending in 2005-06
and 2006-07) within each authority as the starting-point for the
next year's schools funding allocation?
This is correct with respect to 2006-07: the
base will be the 2005-06 spending total. However, funding for
2007-08 will use the 2006-07 Dedicated Schools Grant as the starting
point. If authorities decide to put in additional funds in 2006-07
from their own resources, that will not affect the 2007-08 allocation.
Question 1.5 Will the review of Dedicated
Schools Grant, to report by summer 2007, be undertaken wholly
within central government, or will it be an independent review?
The review will be managed and mainly carried
out by the Department, but we will work closely with external
partners throughout, and they will be welcome to submit papers
on issues of concern to them. There will therefore be scope for
independent views to be considered during the review. The review
will consider what lessons can be learnt from the first two years
of the operation of the Dedicated Schools Grant, and will also
work up proposals for the long term, for a robust distribution
system that is appropriate for a grant which determines the funding
level of schools to a much greater extent than the current system
of Schools Formula Spending Shares.
2. GERSHON
Question 2.1 What is the total of Gershon-related
efficiency savings that the full DfES expenditure programme is
expected to achieve during 2005-06 and subsequent years? How much
of this overall total is attributable to (a) the DfES's own expenditure,
(b) to its sponsored bodies, (c) to local government, (d) to schools
and (e) to other institutions?
Along with other Government Departments, DfES
was set a target to make efficiency gains totalling 2.5% of its
baseline in 2005-06, 5% in 2006-07 and 7.5% in 2007-08. Our baseline
for this was the 2003-04 expenditure figure of £58 billion,
so our target for 2007-08 annual savings is £4.3 billion.
Our target savings are:
In order to meet the target the Department sought
to identify savings in its own administrative costs and those
of its NDPBs that can be reallocated to front line services, and
to identify efficiency gains in the use of wider funding in the
system as a whole.
We expect over a third of our total gains to
be realised through improvements in productive time at the front
line, and roughly a further third to be achieved through more
efficient procurement practices. As the bulk of Departmental expenditure
takes place in the schools sector, the majority, some two-thirds,
of our efficiency gains are expected to come from within that
sector.
It should be emphasised that our efficiencies
are, in the main, efficiency gains (that involve enabling organisations
at the front line to use their resources more efficiently) rather
than cash savings (although there are some of those also). Many
are productive time gains where, for example, teachers will be
relieved of administrative duties and thus gain time to concentrate
on teaching. Our efficiency gains will have the effect of making
the increased resources the Government is committed to putting
into front-line delivery go further.
The gains will be made in all the areas described
in the question, including local authorities, (covering children's
services and school administration), and other institutions, such
as universities.
Question 2.2 What proportion of the Gershon
efficiencies have already been achieved and how does the department
monitor savings?
The Efficiency Programme runs from April 2005
though to March 2008 and is therefore in its early stages. We
have done a great deal to ensure we are in the best possible position
to realise our efficiency target over the next three years, but
the programme is at too early a stage to quantify savings in 2005-06
and beyond.
We have established a Centre for Procurement
Performance to promote better procurement across the education,
skills, children and families system.
The New Relationship with Schools (NRWS) removes
planning, reporting and monitoring requirements imposed by existing
DfES programmes. There are fewer policy initiatives with funding
attached, and therefore fewer planning operations to run and less
detailed monitoring to be conducted.
We have made great strides engaging schools
to deliver workforce reform where progress on implementation of
the third and final phase of the National Agreement on workforce
reform is very positive. At the start of the new school term virtually
all schools reported that they had completed this final phase
or had a plan to do so.
In keeping with our efforts to free-up the frontline
from unnecessary bureaucracy, we have largely used existing data
sources to provide information to inform progress towards targets.
Most gains will be reported on an annual basis and the data will
be collected centrally.
Delivery of all our gains will be achieved through
some 10 different policy programmes across the Department. Each
has measurement processes in place and reports progress to an
Efficiency Board that in turn reports to the main DfES Board.
The Minister responsible for efficiency receives regular monthly
reports. The Department's Efficiency Technical Note, available
on the Department's website at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/otherdocs.shtml
describes how each of the 40 stands are being measured.
Question 2.3 What new expenditure has been
possible as a result of the Gershon savings? Please give examples
of what has been purchased or achieved.
The great majority of the Department's expenditure
is already devolved to the frontline. Schools and other institutions
are in the best position to make decisions on how to spend their
money in the best way possible to improve the attainment and life
chances of pupils and other learners. Therefore, most of our efficiencies
are being realised by front line institutions themselves; and
the effect of our efficiency initiatives is to enable those organisations
to make the most of the resources they have.
3. SPENDING REVIEW
2007
Question 3.1 Because of the Chancellor's decision
to hold the next Spending Review in 2007 (rather than 2006, as
previously expected) are there any implications for the education
programme of having to use the spending figures published for
third year of the 2004 Review?
As set out in the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's
written statement to Parliament on 19 July 2005, the Government
will report on the next three-year Spending Review covering 2008-09,
2009-10 and 2010-11 in 2007 and will hold Departmental allocations
to the agreed figure already announced for 2007-08.
In practice, this situation is not particularly
different from the situation in previous spending reviews. The
spending figures for the third year of the 2002 Review (2005-06)
did not change as part of 2004 Spending Review and we would not
have expected radical adjustments to spending figures for 2007-08
as part of a 2006 Spending Review. It is open to Ministers to
adjust spending plans within those budgets to respond to new or
emerging priorities.
Question 3.2 What are the percentage spending
increases now expected for the DfES programme for 2006-07 and
2007-08 and how do these figures compare with the equivalent run
of percentage increases in each year since 1997-98?
The table below shows total DfES programme expenditure
between 1997-08 and 2007-08 and expenditure on education and children's
services delivered through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
(ODPM):
SPENDING ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND CHILDREN'S
SERVICES BETWEEN 1997-98 AND 2007-08 (£ MILLIONS) 1,
2
|
<lh1>
| 1997-98 | 1998-944
| 1999-2000 | 2000-01
| 2001-02 | 2002-03
|
|
<lh0>
Departmental Expenditure3
| 12,644 | 12,536
| 13,695 | 16,336
| 18,934 | 23,208
|
| Local Education Formula Spending (via ODPM) Education
| 18,367 | 19,384
| 20,414 | 21,479
| 22,513 | 22,502
|
| Children's Social Services | 1,755
| 1,829 | 1,900
| 1,988 | 1,833
| 1,910 |
| Total expenditure | 32,766
| 33,749 | 36,009
| 36,813 | 43,280
| 47,620 |
| Year-on-Year change | NA
| 984 | 2,260
| 3,804 | 3,467
| 4,340 |
| % Change | NA
| 3 | 7
| 11 | 9
| 10 |
|
|
| 2003-04
| 2004-05
(Estimated)
| 2005-06
(Planned)
| 2006-07
(Planned)
| 2007-08
(Planned)
|
|
| Departmental Expenditure3 | 26,068
| 27,739 | 30,688
| 32,944 | 35,230
|
| Local Education Formula Spending (via ODPM) Education
| 25,018 | 26,341
| 27,888 | 29,788
| 31,588 |
| Children's Social Services | 3,038
| 3,737 | 4,015
| 4,315 | 4,515
|
| Total expenditure | 54,124
| 57,817 | 62,591
| 67,047 | 71,333
|
| Year-on-Year change | 6,505
| 3,693 | 4,774
| 4,456 | 4,286
|
| % Change | 14
| 7 | 8
| 7 | 6
|
|
1. Figures exclude central administrative expenditure.
2. Source: Departmental Expenditure Reports.
3. Sum shown are the Total Managed Expenditure.
4. £528 million moved from DfES to the Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister for Nursery Vouchers.
In 2005-06 £62,591 million will be spent on education,
training and children's services including £31,903 million
delivered direct to Local Authorities by ODPM. This represents
an increase of £29,826 million or an annual average increase
of 8% since 1997. Total expenditure will increase on average by
7% per annum between 2005-06 and 2007-08.
4. PRIVATE INVOLVEMENT
IN PUBLIC
PROVISION
Question 4.1 The DfES, in common with the rest of government,
has increasingly used private contractors to deliver aspects of
public service provision. In education, this has meant initiatives
such as PFI schools, contracted out learning accounts, privately-financed
student residences, co-ordinated purchasing schemes and Academy
Schools. How would the Department now describe the Government's
approach to the use of the private sector within education?
The Department considers the range of delivery options for
each of our policies. As part of our options appraisal we seek
best value for money, informed by what will secure successful
delivery both at the present and over time. This may involve public
sector delivery, Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) delivery
or private sector delivery as appropriate to the circumstances.
Involvement of partners from a range of sectors increases
contestability, allows for the introduction of specialist skills
and knowledge, and allows the Department to share risk. And an
additional gain flows from the transfer of skills and experience
back to the Department.
Question 4.2 What assessment has the Department made of
the effectiveness of private sector involvement in education?
In particular, has there been any assessment of whether, and if
so how, private contractors or investment have increased capacity
or improved provision more effectively than would have been the
case if the Department had used public provision alone?
Most of the Department's programmes are delivered in partnership
with others from the public, private or voluntary and community
sectors, and our major programmes and contracts are subject to
performance review and evaluation. Given the wide range of forms
of involvement, it would be difficult to make an informed assessment
of the general impact of the private sector on the basis suggested.
However, the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) provides one
important example of the contribution the private sector can make.
Many local authorities have partnering arrangements with the private
sector to invest in school building projects. There are now 63
PFI contracts in operation covering 435 schools; 29 signed contracts
covering 292 schools where building works are in progress; and
16 more projects in development, covering 135 schools. Much of
this work would not have been possible without private sector
involvement through PFI. HM Treasury's 2003 report, "PFI:
Meeting the investment challenge" found that about 85% of
the school PFI projects it examined had been delivered on time
or early, compared with an average of only 30% of previous non-PFI
projects.
Question 4.3 What lessons have been learned by the Department
about the use of the private sector within education during recent
years?
There is good and bad practice in working with partners in
all sectors. Whether delivery is through the public sector, VCS
or private sector, good practice from the Department's experiences
and others, including the Office of Government Commerce, suggests
a good understanding of what we want, realistic timescales, effective
risk management, clear agreements and effective and appropriate
delivery monitoring and performance management are important.
Question 4.4 Are there any aspects or parts of education
that could never, in any circumstances, be privately provided
in this country (even if still free at the point of delivery)?
The Government is committed to a high quality and responsive
state education system which is publicly funded and free at the
point of delivery. The Secretary of State has made it clear that
she is looking to widen the range of providers in the school system
in order to turn round schools that have failed, push those that
have been coasting and extend parental choice. She is interested
in seeing how the Department can work with a variety of potential
not-for-profit organisations to drive the next phase of reform
and root it firmly in civil society. More broadly, the Government
sees benefits in working with private sector bodies of all kinds—as
well as with the voluntary sector—in specific cases where
they can help to provide high quality goods and services, bring
fresh ideas and expertise into the system or support the efforts
of those who work in the public sector to raise standards and
secure value for money. This has included for instance use in
LEA interventions. It will continue to consider such opportunities
on their merits.
More broadly, the Government welcomes opportunities for partnership
with private sector bodies, whether not-for-profit or commercial,
as well as with the voluntary sector and individuals, where these
will help to provide high quality goods and services, bring fresh
ideas and expertise into the system, and support the efforts of
those who work in the public sector to raise standards and secure
value for money. It will continue to consider such opportunities
on their merits.
5. TARGETS
Question 5.1 Has there been any change to the Government's
philosophy towards the use of targets between the publication
of the 2004 and 2005 departmental annual reports?
There has been no change in philosophy, although the Government
continually assesses the most effective use of target-setting
approaches in the context of its wider agenda for public sector
accountability and reform.
The Government introduced Public Service Agreements (PSAs)
in 1998. Since then, the framework has evolved across government
so that targets have reduced in number, become more focused, are
better supported by performance information and by increased accountability
and transparency. PSA targets are important statements of government
priorities and outline what departments plan to deliver in return
for resources allocated as part of the Spending Review process,
but they need to be used appropriately at the local level.
The 2004 Spending Review took forward the Government's objective
of a strong economy and a fair society with stability, security
and opportunity for all. Increased resources are being focused
on the front-line and will deliver improvements in the services
that matter to the public. The 2004 Spending Review also set stretching
efficiency targets for all departments to release additional resources
to front-line services such as hospitals and schools.
The 2005 DfES Departmental Report sets out the Government's
expenditure plans based on resources allocated in the 2004 Spending
Review. It also reports progress against PSA targets and a summary
of significant developments including progress towards the achievement
of the commitments for 2008 set out in the Department's Five Year
Strategy published in July 2004. The Five Year Strategy sets out
a major programme of reform radically to reshape the systems for
delivering education, training and children's services. DfES remains
committed to achieving its PSA targets through its strategic leadership
of the system and effective delivery programmes. DfES is working
with HM Treasury and the National Audit Office to ensure that
the data systems which underlie PSA targets enable the Department
to monitor and report performance in the most timely and accurate
manner possible.
Question 5.2 How many targets have been set by the DfES
and its predecessor departments in each year since 1997-98?
Including Sure Start and targets transferred from and to
other departments following Machinery of Government changes, the
numbers of headline PSA targets are:
|
| DfEE
Headline
Targets
| DfES
Headline
Targets
| Sure Start
Targets2
| Shared
Targets
| Total |
|
| 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review (1999-2000 to 2001-02)
| 11 (incl 3
ES targets)1
| | 12 |
| 23 |
| Spending Review 2000 | |
| | | |
| (2001-02 to 2003-04) | 13 (incl 4
ES targets)1
| | 4 |
| 17 |
| Spending Review 2002 | |
| | | |
| (2003-04 to 2005-06) | | 123
| 4 | 1
| 17 |
| Spending Review 2004 | |
| | | |
| (2005-06 to 2007-08) | | 94
| | 5 | 14
|
|
1. Responsibility for Employment Service (ES) targets transferred
to DWP in 2002.
2. All Sure Start Unit targets joint with DWP.
3. Includes two SR2002 targets transferred from DH.
4. Includes Sure Start targets.
Question 5.3 What has been learned by the Department about
the benefits and dis-benefits of targets?
The Government's overall ambition, set out most recently
in the 2004 Spending Review, is that the PSA target framework
should articulate and drive forward the Government's highest priorities
and ambitions for delivery. PSA targets are an integral part of
the Government's public expenditure framework, helping to ensure
value for money from public services and that outcomes are delivered
in return for resources.
Broad lessons have been learnt about PSA targets. They are
a key element of the Department's Five Year Strategy and bring
benefits by setting out what it aims to deliver for children,
learners and the citizen in return for investment at the front
line. They connect the Department directly to outcomes for citizens
and provide a powerful encouragement for us to press forward and
make sustained progress in a range of important areas. PSA targets
need to be ambitious and stretching, but also realistic, achievable
and backed by appropriate data and measurement systems. The PSA
targets suite was made more "SMART"—Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time specific—in the
2004 Spending Review. At the local level targets need to be designed
in a manner so that local communities determine the areas where
improvement is required, take ownership of reform and improvement,
and link the targets successfully to local accountability and
inspection frameworks. It is not necessarily the case that national
targets should always be converted automatically to a comprehensive
suite of targets at local level.
Question 5.4 Have there been any changes to the performance
indicators published by the DfES between the publication of the
2004 and 2005 departmental annual reports?
Performance indicators underpin the Department's PSA targets
and are published as part of the PSA Technical Notes, which set
out how performance against each of the PSA targets will be measured.
Technical Notes for the 2002 Spending Review and 2004 Spending
Review PSA targets are available on the Treasury website: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/performance/index.cfm.
The Department's performance indicators reflect the evolution
of the Department's PSA targets. Fourteen PSA targets, outlined
in the 2005 Departmental Annual Report, were agreed in the 2004
Spending Review, including targets for Sure Start and Children,
Young People and Families. The PSA targets aim to continue to
raise standards in many of the areas covered by the 2002 Spending
Review PSA targets and the Department's new or revised objectives
build on these as well as setting out objectives for the Department's
new responsibilities for children, young people and families.
Individual DfES programmes also use a range of performance indicators,
which provide information on various policies and measures.
6. GOVERNMENT REPLY
TO COMMITTEE'S
2004 REPORT (HC 492)
Question 6.1 In its response to the Committee's 2004 Report
on Public Expenditure, the DfES stated: "The Government's
proposal to introduce a new Dedicated Schools Grant to local authorities
and three-year budgets for schools from April 2006 will not centralise
school funding. Local authorities will continue to be responsible
for the distribution of funding between schools in their area".
Is this really true? How much freedom will authorities have to
distribute funding outside the DfES's own rules?
As the answers to questions 1.1-1.5 make clear, local authorities
will continue to be responsible for the distribution of funding
between schools in their area. As now, local authority distribution
formulae will have to comply with the school funding regulations,
but these will continue to leave a wide range of issues to local
authorities' discretion. The regulations will also continue to
allow authorities to use an alternative method where application
of the regulations would result in a school or a group of schools
receiving anomalous budgets. At present, any alternative method
has to be approved by the Secretary of State: under the new arrangements,
certain types of alternative method can be approved locally by
the Schools Forum if there is a local consensus.
7. DEPARTMENTAL STAFFING
Question 7.1 How have DfES staff numbers changed in the
full period since the Lyons Review, Gershon and other efforts
to reform the civil service? What functions (if any) that used
to be undertaken by the Department are no longer undertaken? What
are the planned DfES staffing numbers for 31.3.06 and 31.3.07?
Staff numbers
The Department plans staff reductions from its October 2003
baseline of 850 FTE (full time equivalents) by April 2006 and
in total 1,460 by April 2008 as the result of the Departmental
reform programme. Staffing numbers are set out in the table below.
|
| Period | DfES Staffing (FTEs)
|
|
| October 2003 | 4,660
|
| September 2005 | 3,886
|
| April 2006 (planned) | 3,810
|
| April 2007 (planned) | 3,680
|
| April 2008 (planned) | 3,200
|
|
Changing the nature of the Department's work
When the reforms are complete the Department will be more
strategic, providing strategic leadership to the system; smaller,
doing less direct delivery and working with simpler systems and
processes; professional and expert, providing quality analysis
and with real knowledge of how the system works; and strong in
our partnerships.
Examples of changes underway include:
— New Relationship with Schools (NRWS) is an example
of how DfES is simplifying arrangements across the system. It
reduces the requirements that large numbers of schools have to
comply with. Instead it focuses each school on the key areas in
which it needs to improve. In the process, it reduces demands
that Government and local authorities make on schools. For DfES
there are fewer policy initiatives with funding attached, and
therefore fewer planning operations to run and less detailed monitoring
to be conducted.
— Our new approach to Children's Services has won
support for the Every Child Matters: Change for Children programme
from key stakeholders and children and young people themselves.
Over the next few years the Department will increasingly move
away from detailed direct delivery, of Sure Start and the Connexions
Service, to a more strategic enabling role with delivery through
children's trusts. We will be simplifying funding streams and
inspection arrangements requiring less resource at the centre
and on the ground.
Lyons review
The Department made a commitment in the 2004 Spending Review
to relocate out of London and the South East around 800 posts
from the Department and its partner organisations by 2010. Good
progress in securing commitments to relocate and delivering relocated
posts has been made and we are confident that we will meet the
commitment. Around 400 posts are committed to relocate by April
2006, of which around 60 have been already achieved. These include
around 230 posts from Ofsted being moved from London and the South
East to their three regional offices, posts in the Department,
the Quality Improvement Agency (being established in place of
the Learning and Skills Development Agency) and the Children and
Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS. Beyond
April 2006, relocations will involve further Departmental posts
as well as posts in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority,
the Training and Development Agency for Schools (formerly the
Teacher Training Agency) and other Non-Departmental Public Bodies.
October 2005
| 
