|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Jim Knight: Becta provide advice and information for schools and local authorities about security of data, including their legal obligations and responsibilities in relation to the 1998 Data Protection Act, and this includes a checklist for schools.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on educating children from the Peterborough local education authority area out of area in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 
|Total expenditure by Peterborough( 1) local authority on inter-authority recoupment( 2) : 1997-98 to 2005-06( 1,3,4,5) cash terms figures( 5,6) as reported by Peterborough( 1 ) local authority as at 12 February 2007|
|Total expenditure on inter-authority recoupment( 1,2,3,4,5,6)|
|(1) On 1 April 1998 Cambridgeshire local authority was reorganised and split into Cambridgeshire and Peterborough local authorities and consequently figures are only available for Peterborough local authority from 1998-99 onwards. Cambridgeshire local authority (pre local government reorganisation) reported total expenditure on inter-authority recoupment of £1,081,000 million during the 1997-98 financial year.|
(2) Total expenditure on inter-authority recoupment comprises of any payments made by Peterborough local authority in respect of services provided by other local authorities.
(3) 1999-2000 saw a change in data source when the data collection moved from the RO1 form collected by the ODPM (now the DCLG) to the section 52 form (table 3School Level information) from the DfES. 2002-03 saw a further break in the time series following the introduction of consistent financial reporting (CFR) to schools and the associated restructuring of the outturn tables. The change in sources is shown by the blank rows.
(4) Following the restructuring of the outturn tables in 2002-03, receipts and payments for inter-authority recoupment was not shown separately in that year. However, Peterborough local authority did report net expenditure on inter-authority recoupment of £634,000 for 2002-03.
(5) Data are subject to change by the local authority.
(6) Figures are rounded to the nearest £000.
Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what surveys have been conducted by the Learning and Skills Council into further education provision for adults with learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement. 
Bill Rammell: The Learning and Skills Council published a report of a survey Impact on Adults with Learning Difficulties and/or DisabilitiesIssues from the 2006/07 Planning Round in February 2007. The survey was conducted to ascertain whether courses for adults with learning difficulties and/or disabilities had been reduced from September 2006 onwards on the basis of funding or inadequacy. The report concluded that changes in provision were targeted on inadequate and poor performing courses and not because of cost cutting measures. The Learning and Skills Council will continue to monitor the situation, and report again later this year.
This LSC survey shows there has not been any wholesale reduction of provision and that in the majority of cases identified reasons for reductions have been sound and done in consultation with the local LSC and other partners and learners. Alternatives have been sought and provided in the majority of cases. It is not appropriate that learners should receive provision of poor quality that does not offer progression and where they may be learning very little.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Learning and Skills Agency spent on programme expenditure in Peterborough city council area in each year since 2001; and if he will make a statement. 
Bill Rammell: The programme expenditure incurred by the Learning and Skills Council at local authority level is not collected by my Department. This is an operational matter for the LSC as they determine the level of funding required at local level to deliver their key priorities and targets. Mark Haysom, the councils Chief Executive, has written to the hon. Member with further information and a copy of his reply has been placed in the House Library.
I am writing in response to your Parliamentary Question, how much the Learning and Skills Agency spent on programme expenditure in Peterborough City Council area in each year since 2001. I thank you for your enquiry but unfortunately I am unable to provide you with the information you seek.
There are 47 local offices of the Learning and Skills Council each of which is responsible for the management of a local budget. The key priorities and targets that relate to each of the 47 local offices are not aligned to Local Authority areas. Cambridgeshire LSC includes the Unitary Authority of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire County Council. The LSC contracts out its programme budgets to local providers who deliver both within and across local authority boundaries. Our management information systems therefore do not routinely hold information on programme spend that relates to a single Local Authority area.
We can, with relative ease, identify what spend against a specific budget line has been contracted or spent as a whole, or with, a particular provider. However, in the main our provider contracts do not specify that learners or activity must be in specific local authority areas. For example some of our providers may contract with us via an office in Peterborough but may utilise their funds to deliver activity outside the Unitary Authority area of Peterborough. In order for us to track where activity occurred we would need to analyse our learner data and work out costings for each learner. This would be considerably
time-consuming, particularly for the requested period of six years. I fully appreciate why this information would be of interest to you but we do not gather or hold information in this format.
We are able to determine total programme funding spend within the Cambridgeshire LSC area. If you would like this information we will be able to provide it, but we would expect a task such as this, which extends to a period before the inception of the LSC, to take approximately four weeks. We would also have to buy in additional resources to review and analyse archived financial records so as to provide a response.
Should you wish us to proceed with your enquiry, or discuss your request further, please contact: Dr Jon Nay, Area Director, Cambridgeshire (Jon.Nay@lsc.gov.uk, 01733 895202).
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Departments policy is on teaching children to write in (a) standard and (b) non-standard English at key stages (i) 3 and (ii) 4. 
Jim Knight: During key stages 3 and 4 students should learn to write correctly, using different formats, layouts and ways of presenting their work. Students should be taught about the variations in written standard English and how they differ from spoken language, and to distinguish varying degrees of formality, selecting appropriately for a task. Students should be taught to use the full range of punctuation marks correctly and be taught the principles of sentence grammar and whole-text cohesion and use this knowledge in their writing.
Jim Knight: We are committed to the study of Shakespeare. The national curriculum programmes of study for English require that pupils between the ages of 11 and 14 study the works of a range of major writers and poets, including one play by Shakespeare. There are no plans to change this requirement.
List 99 is a list of individuals whose employment in education and with children has been barred or restricted by the Secretary of State. It contains for each individual included the person's name, date of birth, national insurance number and, in the case of teachers, a teacher reference number. As the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West, reported to the House on 19 January 2006 there were 4,045 individuals on List 99, Official Report column 967. A significant proportion of these have been barred as a result of child sexual offences. However, people may also be placed on the List because they have committed other relevant offences; as a result of allegations
involving misconduct; or, on the grounds of ill health. The information about offences or allegations that have led to a person being barred or restricted by the Secretary of State is not included in List 99. The identification of all the cases where a person has been placed on the List as a result of a conviction for a sexual offence against a child would require each of the 4045 case files to be checked could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.
A check against List 99 will reveal to a prospective employer the fact that a person is barred or restricted from relevant employment. A standard or enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check will reveal the barred status of an individual to an employer together with details of any criminal convictions.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) pursuant to paragraph 3.1 of the consultation letter from his Department on changes to the definition of full-time education in independent schools, what difficulties the Department has experienced in relation to changing patterns of schooling which necessitated the review; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) under what statutory powers a major provider of a child's education may be treated as if it is providing a full-time education and required to register as an independent school; and if he will make a statement. 
Jim Knight [holding answer 20 February 2007]: There is no legal definition of full-time education in relation to independent schools. This Department has always encouraged independent schools to consider the guidance for maintained schools set out in circular 7/90. However both DfES and Ofsted receive many calls from education providers offering increasingly varied patterns of education, and we feel that this advice no longer serves either the Department or independent education providers well. Our aim is to provide clear guidance that ensures that education organisations that offer all, or almost all, of a childs education, register as independent schools.
Jim Knight: The Departments general guidance on bullying Dont Suffer in Silence includes a section flagging up the need for schools to tackle bullying motivated by race, gender, sexual orientation or disability. The Department has also issued the Anti-Bullying Charter which prompts schools to consider if they work with all staff and outside agencies to identify different sorts of bullying, including homophobic and racist bullying.
The Department is currently drawing up web-based guidance for schools which will look more specifically at how to prevent and tackle homophobic bullying. In addition to looking specifically at issues surrounding sexuality, the guidance will also look at the importance of avoiding gender stereotyping in schools. We have commissioned Stonewall and Educational Action Challenging Homophobia (EACH) to produce the guidance and are consulting key stakeholders on the form and content of the document. We intend to issue the guidance later this year and will follow this up with a series of regional seminars for schools.
Jim Knight: A report of the recent inspection of the Ridings School has not yet been published by Ofsted. The local authority will be expected to respond to the specific findings of that report when published with plans to secure immediate improvements in provision at the school and to improve the longer term prospects for provision for children in the local area.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students within Romford constituency left key stage four with five or more A*-C GCSE or equivalent qualifications in 2005/06. 
Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average level of school (a) attendance and (b) exclusions in Hendon was in the last period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. 
There are quality issues with data on permanent exclusions. The Department has carried out checking exercises in each year to confirm the overall number of permanent exclusions. However, this only confirmed the number of exclusions in each local authority. Figures provided in this response relating to permanent exclusions are as reported by schools and are known to be incomplete.
|Maintained primary and secondary schools( 1) : number of exclusions, Hendon Parliamentary Constituency, 2004-05|
|Maintained primary schools||Maintained secondary schools|
|Permanent exclusions( 2)||Fixed period exclusions||Permanent exclusions( 2)||Fixed period exclusions|
|Number||Percentage( 3)||Number||Percentage( 3)||Number||Percentage( 3)||Number||Percentage( 3)|
|# = less than three or a rate based on less than three.|
(1) Includes middle schools as deemed.
(2) There are known quality issues with permanent exclusion data presented here. The number of permanent exclusions are unconfirmed and known to be incomplete.
(3) The number of exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of all pupils (excluding dually registered pupils).
Schools Census and Termly Exclusions Survey
|Maintained primary and secondary schools( 1) : absence data, Hendon parliamentary constituency 2005-06|
|Percentage of half days missed|
|Authorised absence||Unauthorised absence|
|(1) Includes middle schools as deemed.|
Unauthorised absence is absence without leave from a teacher or other authorised representative of the school. This includes all unexplained or unjustified absences, such as lateness, holidays during term time not authorised by the school, absence where reason is not yet established and truancy.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|