Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Rt Hon Beverley Hughes MP, Minister of State for Children,
Young People and Families Department for Education and Skills
Thank you for the Education and Skills Select
Committee's interest in the Every Child Matters programme.
As I said at the Committee's hearing on 20 November, we have embarked
on a long term programme of change to improve outcomes for children
and young people. Effective evaluation and scrutiny of progress
are vital to the programme's success and the Education and Skills
Select Committee plays a vital role in that process.
There were a number of issues raised at the
hearing on 20 November which I said I agreed to write to the Committee
about. I address each of these in turn below.
CHILDREN'S
CENTRES
I said that I would update the Committee on
the number of children's centres that are co-located with schools.
In November 2005, my Department issued the latest children's centre
planning guidance to local authorities. The guidance stated that
"When planning children's centres local authorities should
consider the opportunities for schools, particularly primary schools,
to co-locate with children's centres and offer integrated services
for children and parents/carers from one place [...]. Co-location
could result in improved transition arrangements for children
starting formal education, both for the children and their families".
We do not routinely collect data on the number
of phase one children's centres that are co-located with schools.
Children's centres for phase two of the national roll-out are
currently in the planning stage. Of the 1,800 centres planned,
924 say they will be co-located with school sites and a further
413 may be co-located with schools. However, you should note that
these children's centres are still in the planning stage and that
consequently these figures may change.
PRIORITY REVIEWS
Helen Jones MP asked for further detail on the
DfES programme of priority reviews, sometimes known as "deep
dives". These reviews were developed, based on methodology
used by the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, to look in detail,
in a small number of areas, at implementation on the ground of
a particular national policy. They aim to establish:
— The successes and effective local
solutions that should be shared and learned from;
— What are the barriers to effective
implementation of the policy, and how can they be addressed;
— How are stakeholders working together
and how might they work even more effectively; and
— What are the messages for policy
design in central Government.
Reviews are designed according to the particular
issues and questions to be addressed, but common to all is in-depth
discussions with the local authority and other partners in the
local area. They are not, of course, a substitute for the value
that academic evaluative research can bring, nor for the findings
of inspection. However, they are quick and practical way of learning
from experience on the ground, and I am grateful to the local
partners—including schools—who have shared their experiences
and reflections as part of the first two reviews.
The first of the priority reviews looked at
the relationship between the Every Child Matters programme
and the school standards agenda. Attached at annex A is a summary
of the findings of this review. I also attach, at annex B, a letter
from Tom Jeffery (the Director General for Children, Young People
and Families) and Ralph Tabberer (the Director General for Schools)
to Directors of Children's Services explaining the findings of
the review and the link between school standards and Every
Child Matters. The second review, currently in progress, is
focusing on the operation of Local Safeguarding Children Boards.
CHILDREN IN
CARE
I said I would write with information on the
number of children in care who move schools in years 10 and 11.
Far too many children in care move school, and care placement,
in years 10 and 11 when most other children would be focused on
preparing for their GCSEs. Figures show that 37% of children in
care move placement at least once the year before their GCSEs,
and they are five times more likely than other children to move
school in year 10 and 11. This is unacceptable, and correlated
with a significant drop in exam performance, damaging the future
life chances of this already vulnerable group.
In our Green Paper, Care Matters: Transforming
the Lives of Children in Care, we set out a vision for increasing
the stability and support in every aspect of children in care's
lives. We proposed a new tiered structure for foster and residential
care, alongside a strategic regional approach to commissioning
placements, to make sure that children have the right support
at home and to avoid placements breaking down. In addition, we
set out a range of proposals to help children get into and stay
in the right school for them, including a new power for local
authorities to direct maintained schools to admit children in
care, a presumption that young people in care should not move
schools in years 10-11, and an entitlement to free school transport
to allow them to remain in the same school after a placement move.
ACADEMIES AND
ADMISSION OF
CHILDREN IN
CARE
I also wanted to confirm the admission arrangements
for academies in relation to children in care. At the hearing,
I confirmed that the local authority's power to direct a school
to admit a child in care applied only to the admission authorities
of maintained schools, and does not, therefore, apply to academies.
An equivalent power does, however, apply to
academies and rests with the Secretary of State through an academy's
funding agreement. Where an academy refused to admit the child,
the local authority could refer the case to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State will be able to take advice from the Schools
Adjudicator before determining whether or not to direct an academy
to admit the child. This will ensure that decisions made in relation
to academies are consistent with those being made in the maintained
sector.
The National Foundation for Educational Research
(NFER) and the Local Government Association (LGA) published a
report this summer entitled "Admissions: who goes where".
It found that academies appeared to be situated in areas where
the community populations included higher proportions of children
eligible for free school meals (FSM); with special educational
needs (SEN); of black or ethnic minority origin; and of lower
key stage 2 (KS2) ability. Moreover, it found that:
— Academies admit higher proportions
of pupils eligible for FSM than the proportion living in the local
postcode districts;
— Academies admit higher proportions
of pupils with SEN compared to the proportions living in the local
postcode districts;
— Academies admit a lower proportion
of pupils of higher KS2 ability compared to the proportion living
within the local postcode districts.
ACCURACY OF
THE INFORMATION
SHARING INDEX
The Committee asked about the level of inaccuracy
in the pilots for the information sharing index. Data quality
was an issue for the index "Trailblazers" which is why
we developed a set of initial regulations (Information Sharing
Index (England) Regulations 2006), which provided for data matching
trials to take place, as essential initial work in the development
and implementation of the index.
The objective of the data matching trials was
to examine a sample of records from the main data sources in order
to:
— enable an assessment of how comprehensively
each covers the population of children;
— establish what is the most reliable
source of accurate and up-to-date information for each data item;
and
— assess how disparities in the ways
in which data sources record each item can most efficiently be
overcome.
The trials tested the data to provide an early
indication of the expected level of cross-matching required for
the full national Index. Samples of basic information were supplied
from the Department for Work and Pensions, Department of Health,
the Department for Education and Skills and nine local authorities.
For records where it was possible to compare
data held about a child by more than one source—this was
around 90% of all records examined as not all children have records
in all the systems. For example a child attending an independent
school would not be included on the DfES school census—there
was sufficient corroboration to be very confident that the data
was correct. For the remaining information, where it was not possible
to compare the information from all three sources, the index project
will provide resources to investigate any discrepancies and correct
them, leading to a high level of confidence in the index data.
This in no way suggests the remainder were errors or incomplete
records. The data matching trials support the strategy underpinning
the index business case of using data from a number of existing
national and local sources. The report of the data matching trials
will shortly be made available on the Every Child Matters web
site.
Finally, I think it is worth re-iterating that
the IS Index will not hold sensitive information about the child.
It will only hold basic information about children and young people
such as name, address, gender, date of birth, an identifying number,
and contact details for services working with them.
If members of the Committee have further questions
on any of these issues, or on other aspects of the Every Child
Matters Programme I would be able to provide further information.
December 2006
| 
