Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Department for Children, Schools and Families
Question 27 (Chairman) The ways that interventions
are designed to overcome deprivation and improve performance
The Departmental Report describes many of the
ways that the Department has been working with partners to overcome
deprivation and improve performance. Some of the main programmes
and recent developments are described below.
SURE START
The Government has invested more than £21
billion in extending and strengthening early years and childcare
services since 1997 (including what is now the early years element
of Dedicated Schools Grant funding to local authorities to support
free early education for three and four year olds) to improve
outcomes for all children, but most particularly the most disadvantaged
and vulnerable, and narrow the gap between outcomes for the poorest
and the rest.
All three and four-year-olds are guaranteed
free early education, childcare has more than doubled in 10 years—with
more support than ever before to help parents with the cost—and
a curriculum and standards have been introduced to ensure young
children develop in a safe and stimulating environment.
Our flagship multi-agency Sure Start Children's
Centres are at the heart of the Government's Ten Year Childcare
Strategy. Centres in the most disadvantaged communities offer
integrated early education and childcare, outreach, health and
support services for families with children under five; and they
have active links with JobCentre Plus to help parents into work
and training.
Over 1,330 centres had been established at July
2007, offering services to more than a million children under
five and their families. Good progress is being made towards delivering
2,500 centres by 2008 (when all the young children and their families
in the most disadvantaged areas will have access to one) and 3,500
by 2010, one for every community.
Research and evaluation (including reports from
the NAO and PAC) shows that children's centres are providing better
services for some of the most disadvantaged young children and
families and are valued highly by parents. But equally, we acknowledge
their findings pointing to their needing to do more for some of
the most disadvantaged (eg teenage mothers), to ensure they are
reached and provided with services that meet their needs.
We have issued new revised Practice Guidance
in November 2006 with stronger messages on how centres can engage
effectively with the most excluded and isolated families, and
a greater emphasis on the importance of outreach services, so
centres are both accessible and responsive.
We have also highlighted the steps that local
authorities and centres should take to manage their performance
effectively and demonstrate that they are providing value for
money by publishing a performance management framework; and put
in place support to help them deliver better outcomes for children
and families, especially those with high levels of need.
TRANSITION FROM
PRIMARY TO
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Through the National Strategies Programme we
have provided secondary schools with teaching guidance to improve
curriculum continuity and pupil progression for pupils as they
transfer from primary to secondary school. Schools are encouraged
to make effective use of pupil data, particularly to identify
those that may require additional support, as well as strategies
to involve parents and pupils in supporting their learning and
improve the pastoral support available to new pupils.
PERSONALISED LEARNING
Personalised learning is about providing a more
tailored education for every child which:
— understands their needs;
— provides relevant opportunities and
support to enable them to flourish and progress in their learning;
and
— offers the opportunity for small
group and one-to-one teaching where appropriate.
The Department has invested nearly £1 billion
to help schools deliver more personalised learning. The funding
is intended to support intervention teaching, meeting the needs
of specific groups and individuals.
All schools should receive some funding, but
those schools facing the greatest challenges receive the most;
it is directed to schools and local authorities which have the
highest number of pupils who have fallen behind in English and
mathematics, and toward areas of high deprivation. Schools can
use it in a range of ways to improve their capacity to offer more
personalised teaching and learning; for example to provide more
small group and one-to-one tuition, or to access training to build
teachers' skills in pupil assessment, intervention, booster classes,
mentoring and transition support.
THE CITIES
CHALLENGE PROGRAMME
The London Challenge was set up in 2003 as a
five year programme to turn round London's major school problems.
It offers intensive help to schools and boroughs with the biggest
challenges; a city-wide school leadership strategy; incentives
to attract and retain the best teachers in London; acceleration
of the major school reforms; help for London students to experience
the wealth of out-of-school opportunities in the city; and solutions
to some major problems that cross Borough boundaries.
Ofsted reported positively at the end of 2006
on the impact of the programme, and on the sharp improvement in
standards in London schools. They recommended that the approach
should be considered for other vulnerable parts of the country.
The Government announced in June that the London
Challenge will be extended for at least three more years, and
that a similar approach will be developed for Greater Manchester
and the Black Country.
TEENAGE PREGNANCY:
OVERCOMING DEPRIVATION
Prevention
Young women from deprived areas are much more
likely to conceive before age 18 than young women from affluent
areas—50% of teenage pregnancies occur in the 20% of wards
with the highest rates (which match very closely to the 20% most
deprived wards).
The Teenage Pregnancy Unit provides each local
area with ward-level data on under-18 conceptions to allow them
to target local strategies on high-rate neighbourhoods. It has
also provided information on the characteristics that increase
the risk of young women conceiving early—such as poor educational
attainment, experience of living in care and low post-16 participation—to
allow them to identify and provide additional support to those
individuals most at risk.
Between 1998 (the baseline year for the teenage
pregnancy strategy) and 2005 (the latest year for which data are
available) the under-18 conception rate has fallen by 11.8% to
its lowest level for over 20 years. The under-16 conception rate
has fallen by 12.1% over the same period.
Support
As well as being more likely to conceive early,
young women from deprived areas are also more likely to choose
to go ahead with the pregnancy, rather than have an abortion.
The rate of births to women aged under-18 in the 10% most deprived
wards is nine times higher than in the 10% least deprived wards.
Having a child at a young age is associated
with a range of poor outcomes, which further increase the likelihood
that the young woman and her child or children will live in poverty.
These poor outcomes include:
— Poor child health outcomes at birth
(including a 60% higher rate of infant mortality and a 25% higher
rate of low birth weight).
— Children of teenage mothers are also
more likely to have poor educational attainment and are more likely
to be economically active in later life.
— Teenage mothers have very low levels
of post-16 participation in education, employment or training
(EET), which result in poor labour market prospects.
As a consequence, children born to teenage mothers
have a 63% higher risk of living in poverty, compared to children
born to mothers in their twenties. On 19 July 2007, the Department
published a refreshed "Support" Strategy, setting out
its plans to address the poor outcomes experienced by teenage
parents and their children, to avoid their long-term risk of social
exclusion.
CONNEXIONS
The Connexions service was established in 2001
with the aim of providing a comprehensive service to meet young
people's needs for information, advice and support. A key feature
of the service was delivery of services to a young person through
a single point of contact—the Personal Adviser (PA).
Through multi-agency working, Connexions has
provided integrated information, advice, guidance and access to
personal development opportunities to help remove barriers to
learning and progression and ensure young people make a smooth
transition to adulthood and working life. Connexions is designed
to help all young people, with a particular focus on those at
risk of not being in education, employment or training (NEET),
or of being socially excluded.
Questions 48-51 (Mr Chaytor) Will the targeting
of deprivation in the next three years school funding agreement
be less sensitive?
David Chaytor asked whether the continued use
of the "spend plus" methodology for 2008-11 would change
the differential in funding between the most and least deprived
authorities. He quoted the figure of 85% as the differential in
funding per pupil between the highest and lowest funded authorities
and asked whether using spend plus to distribute Dedicated Schools
Grant would make the targeting of deprivation less sensitive or
not.
The differential of 85% in funding per pupil
takes account of all funding streams for schools: Dedicated Schools
Grant, School Standards Grant, School Development Grant and other
grants to local authorities. The ratio is not solely dependent
therefore on what happens to the distribution of Dedicated Schools
Grant.
Ministers' decision to use "spend plus"
for Dedicated Schools Grant distribution does not of itself mean
that the differential will increase or decrease. The first part
of the methodology—increasing the baseline by a fixed amount
per pupil for all authorities—makes no difference at all
to the differential in Dedicated Schools Grant per pupil between
the highest and lowest authorities. If the gap is 85% and each
authority's funding per pupil is increased by the same percentage,
then the differential is still 85%.
What will make a difference is the distribution
of the "plus" part of the methodology—the funding
that is distributed to authorities over and above the fixed increase
per pupil. If Ministers decide that the distribution of this funding
should have a strong deprivation focus that would widen the differential
between the highest and lowest funded authorities. Conversely,
if Ministers decided that the distribution should be largely pupil
led, that would narrow the gap between the highest and lowest
funded authorities. Ministers will also need to decide how much
of the increase from the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement
should be distributed through School Standards Grant (SSG) and
School Development Grant (SDG), and how those increases should
be distributed. That too will have an impact, albeit a small one
on the differential. We will announce the distribution of DSG,
SSG and SDG at the time of the school funding settlement in the
autumn.
Questions 62-63 (Mr Chaytor) Does the proposed
claw-back of surpluses apply to Academies?
The funding agreement we have with each Academy
already controls the level of surplus individual Academies can
build up. This is generally set at higher than 5% to reflect the
fact that, unlike maintained schools, as charitable companies
Academies must avoid insolvency, which would oblige them to cease
trading. However the Secretary of State can authorise them to
operate a deficit budget on a temporary basis.
Questions 81-86 (Mr Wilson) How much of the budget
for schools is allocated for deprivation?
Identifying how much of the Departmental budget
which goes to local authorities as a top-up for deprivation is
not entirely straightforward: the main issue is that some of the
funding streams and factors used in their distribution cannot
simply be identified as deprivation funding or not, as the following
paragraphs set out. The final figure set out in the table at the
end of this section must be considered to be an estimate, and
not a precise figure.
For Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), we
can identify a proportion of the 2005-06 spend baseline that was
for deprivation by looking at the factors in the Schools FSS formula
for that year. We have included funding distributed on the basis
of Income Support and Working Families' Tax Credit data.
We then consider which of the factors in the
distribution formulae for Ministerial priorities for 2006-07 and
2007-08 are for deprivation—the relevant ones are in the
distribution of funding for personalisation. We have included
all funding distributed on the basis of Income Support, as we
have in the baseline. Funding distributed on the basis of low
prior attainment is less clear cut: while there is a strong link
between low prior attainment and deprivation, not all of the funding
distributed on the basis of low prior attainment data can be said
to be for deprivation—there are non-deprived children with
low prior attainment. In our guidance to local authorities, we
have said that 75% of funding for low prior attainment should
be counted as for deprivation, and that is what we have done in
calculating the figure for deprivation within DSG. That gives
a figure of 9.7% of DSG for 2007-08, or £2,730 million.
School Standards Grant is distributed
on the basis of pupil numbers, and so does not take any account
of deprivation.
School Standards Grant (Personalisation)
Grant uses Free School Meals and low prior attainment information.
Using the same methodology for low prior attainment as for DSG,
gives a figure of £255 million, of the £365 million
total, distributed on deprivation in 2007-08.
School Development Grant incorporates
a number of constituent grants, the treatment of which is discussed
below:
— Excellence in Cities—allocated
to authorities with high levels of deprivation and low prior attainment—£373
million in total, all of which has been counted for deprivation;
— Behaviour and Attendance—allocated
to authorities with high levels of deprivation and low prior attainment—£135
million in total, all of which has been counted for deprivation;
and
— SEN, Study Support and School
Study Support—all include a factor for Free School meals,
and the proportion of these grants distributed on that indicator
has been included—£134 million between the three grants.
There are two other grants which are distributed
on the basis of deprivation factors:
Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (£179
million); and
Primary Behaviour (£3 million).
All of the former and 75% of the latter have been included.
Adding together the figures, the total funding
for deprivation is estimated at £3.8 billion, but we must
reiterate again that this must be considered to be an estimate,
and not a precise figure.
ESTIMATE OF DEPARTMENTAL GRANTS ALLOCATED
FOR DEPRIVATION IN 2007-08
| Grant | £
| Notes |
| Dedicated Schools Grant | 2,730
| |
| School Standards Grant (Personalisation)
| 255 | |
| School Development Grant |
| |
| ——Excellence in Cities | 373
| Allocation based on deprivation and attainment
|
| ——Behaviour and Attendance |
135 | Allocation based on deprivation and attainment
|
| ——Special Educational Needs |
26 | Element of grant allocated on Free School Meal entitlement
|
| ——Study Support | 22
| Element of grant allocated on Free School Meal entitlement
|
| ——School Support Staff | 86
| Element of grant allocated on Free School Meal entitlement
|
| Other Grants | |
|
| ——Ethnic Minority | 179
| |
| ——Achievement Grant |
| |
| ——Primary Behaviour Grant | 3
| |
| ——Total | 3,808 |
|
Questions 87-95 (Mr Wilson) How many parent governors are in
receipt of free school meals for their children?
The Department does not routinely collect information on
the composition of the governing bodies of maintained schools.
However, parents must comprise at least one third of the places
on the governing bodies of all maintained schools in England.
Governing bodies should include people with the skills and abilities
to drive forward school improvement and people who represent the
local community that the school serves. Governing bodies have
a valuable role to play in developing strong and positive relationships
between people from different backgrounds and in contributing
to community cohesion in their local area.
It is important that governing bodies take into account the
views of parents in their deliberations and decision making and
this includes all categories of parents. For this reason the Education
and Inspections Act 2006 places a new duty on governing bodies,
in carrying out their functions, to have regard to the views of
parents of registered pupils.
Some schools have already established Parent Councils to
enable parents' views to be expressed. All schools will be encouraged
to establish a Parent Council but this will only be a statutory
requirement for Trust schools where the Trust appoints a majority
of the governing body. Parent Councils offer an opportunity to
involve a wider range of parents directly in decisions about the
school.
Parent Councils will have a consultative and advisory role,
rather than having decision-making powers. They are a means to
strengthen the voice of parents, and to enable more parents to
express their opinions and influence decisions. Governing bodies
will be expected to use the Parent Council (where there is one)
as a means to seek views, as well as to listen if it raises its
own issues and ideas.
Questions 134-138 (Stephen Williams) What will the capital
expenditure per pupil be for a pupil in the state school sector
at the end of the Comprehensive Spending Review period compared
to a pupil in the private sector?
In the March 2007 Budget the Chancellor said that the rises
in education spending to 2010 would continue to narrow the gap
in investment per pupil between state and private schools.
In 2005-06 private sector capital investment in schools was
£975 per pupil. By 2010-11, we will match that figure adjusted
for inflation for the state sector (which we expect to be around
£1,110 per pupil).
We will have to wait until 2010 to know the exact sum that
private schools will be spending on capital investment then.
July 2007
| 
