You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Daily Hansard - Written Answers
Previous Section Index Home Page

26 Mar 2007 : Column 1294W—continued

Schools: Crimes of Violence

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many incidents of violence towards (a) staff and (b) pupils were reported in (i) the 10 per cent. of primary schools with the (A) lowest and (B) highest levels of free school meal entitlement and (ii) the 10 per cent. of secondary schools with the (A) lowest and (B) highest levels of free school meal entitlement in 2006. [126527]

Jim Knight: The number of incidents of violence towards staff and pupils is not collected centrally.

From the academic year 2003/04, information is available on the reasons for pupil exclusions. These reasons include ‘physical assault against an adult’ and ‘physical assault against a pupil’.

The table provides a breakdown of the number of permanent and fixed period exclusions during 2004/05 from maintained primary and secondary schools for physical assault against a pupil or an adult in schools with the highest and lowest proportion of school population known to be eligible for free school meals.

Exclusions data are collected retrospectively. The latest available exclusions data relate to the 2004/05 academic year. Information on exclusions during the 2005/06 academic year is expected to be released in June 2007.


26 Mar 2007 : Column 1295W

26 Mar 2007 : Column 1296W
Maintained primary and secondary schools( 1) : permanent and fixed period exclusions for physical assault against a pupil or an adult( 2) —2004/05 England
Maintained primary schools Maintained secondary schools
10 per cent. of schools with: 10 per cent. of schools with:
l owest percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals( 3) h ighest percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals( 3) All s chools l owest percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals( 3) h ighest percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals( 3) All s chools

Number of schools(4)

1,766

1,764

17,642

339

339

3,367

Exclusions for physical assault against an adult

Number of fixed period exclusions

120

1,410

5,960

210

1,700

9,490

Fixed period exclusions per 1,000 pupils

0.40

2.89

1.42

0.59

5.79

2.86

Number of permanent exclusions(2)

(5)—

70

280

10

160

870

Permanent exclusions per 1,000 pupils

(5)—

0.15

0.07

0.04

0.56

0.26

Exclusions for physical assault against a pupil

Number of fixed period exclusions

210

2,810

11,950

2,460

7,250

65,790

Fixed period exclusions per 1,000 pupils

0.70

5.74

2.84

7.04

24.70

19.84

Number of permanent exclusions(2)

(5)—

50

240

40

220

1,460

Permanent exclusions per 1,000 pupils

(5)—

0.11

0.06

0.10

0.76

0.44

(1) Includes middle schools as deemed.
(2) Published statistics (SFR 24/2006) on permanent exclusions have been derived from data collected via the school census. These data did not include the reason for exclusion. Figures shown in this table relating to permanent exclusions have been derived from Termly Exclusions Survey returns and will not match published figures on permanent exclusions.
(3) Information on the proportion of school population known to be eligible for free school meals has been derived from 2005 school census returns. Schools have been ranked based on the percentage of full-time pupils aged 0 to 15 and part-time pupils aged five to 15 who are known to be eligible for free school meals.
(4) Schools were sorted by the proportion of school population known to be eligible for free school meals and size of school population. Three primary schools had the same free school meal percentage and school population at the end of the lowest 10 per cent. band and have all been included in this analysis (pushing the band size to 1,766 instead of 1,764).
(5) One or two exclusions, or a rate based on one or two exclusions.
Note:
Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. There may be discrepancies between the sum of constituent items and totals as shown.
Source:
Termly Exclusions Survey and School Census

Schools: Finance

Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local authorities agreed increases in centrally retained expenditure from their school budgets above the central expenditure limit in 2006-07. [127080]

Jim Knight: The following list details the 90 local authorities whose budget for central expenditure for 2006-07 was greater than the allowed limit. This is taken from the local authority benchmarking tables which can be found on TeacherNet at:

The tables were published on 31 August 2006 and copies of the data have been placed in the House Library.

Two technical changes to the school funding system for 2006-07 contributed to the total of 90 authorities who breached the central expenditure limit: local authorities were allowed to retain centrally funding which had in 2005-06 been distributed through teachers’ pay grant; and school specific contingency within the individual schools budget (ISB) was abolished, leading to an increase in the amount of contingency held within the central budget for some local authorities. We thought it appropriate that local schools forums should approve these arrangements where they led to a breach of the central expenditure limit.


26 Mar 2007 : Column 1297W

Schools: Fire Extinguishers

Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what his Department’s policy is on the installation of sprinkler systems in existing school buildings; [127196]

(2) what his Department’s policy is on the installation of sprinkler systems in school buildings being (a) renovated and (b) newly built. [127197]


26 Mar 2007 : Column 1298W

Jim Knight: On 1 March I was able to announce in the House our new policy on sprinklers. It is now our expectation that all new schools will have fire sprinklers installed. However, we do not intend to make this a compulsory measure as sufficient regulations are already in place covering life safety and we do not need to legislate further for property protection. There may be cases where local authorities or other promoters of schools consider that sprinklers are not needed. They will need to be able to demonstrate that such schools are low risk and that sprinklers would not represent good value for money. To do this they should use our new risk assessment and cost benefit analysis tools that I launched on 26 February at a parliamentary seminar.

Where a school is undergoing extensive renovation, local authorities and other promoters should use the same tools to determine levels of risk and value for money, and therefore whether sprinklers are needed or should be considered. We are not suggesting that existing school buildings that are not undergoing refurbishment should have sprinklers installed. However, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, implemented in October 2006, requires all schools to carry our annual fire risk assessments. Where risks are identified, measures must be taken to reduce or remove them.

Next Section Index Home Page