|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many pupils who did not obtain five A*- C grades at GCSE including English and mathematics did not go on to further education in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Jim Knight: The Youth Cohort Study is able to provide estimates for pupils who took GCSEs in 2003, the latest data available. Of those who did not obtain five GCSE A*-C grades including Mathematics and English, approximately 44 per cent. did not continue in full time education after finishing Year 11. However, some of these would have gone into other forms of education or training such as Government Supported Training or part time education.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what steps the Government has taken to increase the number of young people in Coventry achieving five A* to C grades at GCSE. 
|5A*-C||5A*-C including English and maths||5A*-C||5A*-C including English and maths|
The general rise in secondary standards may be attributed to improvements in teaching and learning, better school leadership, targeted intervention to tackle school failure, better use of pupil performance data and the ambitious targets schools and local authorities have set for their pupils. Challenge and support through the National Secondary Strategy has also had a substantial recent impact.
As part of the Chancellor of the Exchequers Budget for 2008, the Government have now committed a new £200 million package, over the next three years, for a National Challenge to raise standards in secondary schools, with particular focus on those schools where less than 30 per cent. of pupils achieve five or more good GCSEs including English and mathematics. The National Challenge programme will provide intensive support for the most vulnerable secondary schools, and will empower many head teachers of strong schools to help turn around other schools that are unable to raise low attainment. The programme will help create new trusts and federations based on successful schools; and, in areas of greatest need, drive forward a faster expansion of the academies programme.
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will make it his policy to collect information on the number of children of compulsory school age who are home educated. 
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what guidance and information on the teaching of literacy his Department sends or makes available to maintained primary schools. 
Early Reading (which includes phonics and the simple view of reading and Every Child a Reader)
Learning objectives for speaking and listening, reading, writing Assessment
Planning (which includes support for intervention through Early Literacy Support, Year 3 Literacy Support and Further Literacy Support)
The Primary National Strategy also provides continuing professional development in literacy and exemplification of good practice (through DVDs for instance). Every local authority has a literacy consultant to provide CPD for all and work specifically with targeted schools.
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to his Departments press release of 14 March on progress in teaching phonics, if he will place in the Library a copy of Sir Jim Roses letter on phonics teaching in schools. 
When the Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading was published the Secretary of State at the time asked me to report on how well the recommendations were being implemented. This letter is my response. It is based on a series of visits to schools, discussions with local authorities and attendance at Primary National Strategy training events.
It is an obvious truth that if world class reading standards are to be achieved then world class teaching must be provided. The indications are that good progress has been made in raising the quality of teaching for beginner readers such that the leading edge work in our schools is excellent by any standard. It is also clear that schools are responding very positively to the first recommendation of the Review: to strengthen childrens speaking and listening skills as important in their own right, and as a basis for reading and writing.
Following acceptance of the review recommendations the National Curriculum has been amended and the Primary Literacy Framework has been renewed so that high quality phonic work is the prime approach to teaching reading. A Communication, Language and Literacy Development (CLLD) programme has been developed to improve the teaching of phonics, and a free phonics teaching resource, 'Letters and Sounds', has been produced. In addition, the new Early Years Foundation Stage will reflect the Reviews recommendations. I have kept closely in touch with these developments.
Overall, the message is positive, and schools are reporting that many children are making faster progress in learning how to read and to spell than was previously the case. As a broad estimate, at least three-quarters of our primary schools are implementing phonic work as recommended by the review. However, as might be expected, there is considerable variation in the quality of teaching and childrens progress as schools come to terms with implementing the recommendations from different starting points.
High quality, systematic teaching of decoding and encoding skills, ie phonic work, is a key factor in securing children's progress in reading and writing. Notable features of success which underpin such teaching include:
Opportunities for professional development and consistency of messageall those responsible for the briefing and training to settings and schools were themselves trained and fully conversant with the Reviews recommendations.
Linking principles to practicethe simple view of reading is the rationale recommended by the Review which enabled the training to make clear why it is important to teach high quality phonic work and how to teach it.
Coaching and feedbackteachers reported the value of observing their own class being taught word recognition skills expertly by a National Strategies consultant. They also valued opportunities for feedback on the quality of their own teaching, and for coaching on points which called for improvement.
Robust leadershipas ever, the best teaching was where head teachers were fully committed and pressed relentlessly for a consistent, school wide approach.
Lead teachershaving teachers who, irrespective of their job titles, took a strong lead, were knowledgeable in the teaching of reading, to whom others could turn for advice and support.
Teaching assistantswho had received thorough training and were able to support teachers, and help children with their reading.
Teachers as ambassadorsin implementing the recommendations on the teaching of reading teachers drew considerable professional satisfaction from their success and especially that of the children. They were willing advocates of the approach to a wider audience.
Although much excellent progress in the teaching of early reading and writing is evident, I do not believe we have yet reached the point where such teaching is the norm for all children. For example, not all settings and schools are yet self-sustaining in teaching phonic knowledge and skills essential for reading and making sure that children apply these skills to comprehend what they read. This strongly suggests that in-service support for serving teachers, practitioners and teaching assistants should continue to focus on phonics in the context of a broad and language rich curriculum. It would also be prudent to keep the various forms of initial teacher training under review to ensure that trainee teachers are well prepared to teach reading effectively.
These issues are being addressed through the CLLD programme and other initiatives. I hope to comment further on the standards and quality of teaching reading in the review of the primary curriculum which you have asked me to undertake.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what proportion of primary schools were judged to be satisfactory by Ofsted at their most recent inspection. 
Parliamentary question number 192667: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, how many primary schools were judged to be satisfactory by Ofsted at their most recent inspection?
Your recent parliamentary question has been passed to me, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, for a response.
As of 7 March 2008, there are 17208 primary schools, including middle-deemed primary schools. Of these, 16928 have had at least one inspection with an overall effectiveness grade. For 13254 of these, the latest inspection was carried out under the current inspection framework, in use since September 2005, and for the remaining 3674 the latest inspection was carried out under the previous inspection framework.
Of the 13254 inspected under the current framework, which uses a four point scale, 4651 were judged to be satisfactory. Of the 3674 inspected under the previous framework, which used a seven point scale, 1108 were judged to be satisfactory.
It is not possible to operate a simple read-across approach from a seven- to a four-point scale. Some schools judged good under the previous inspection framework would now be judged satisfactory. Ofsted's criteria for making inspection judgements
about schools are clearly set out in our inspection guidance. Inspectors do not make reference to, or comparisons with, the previous inspection framework.
A copy of this reply has been sent to Jim Knight MP, Minister of State for Children, Schools and Families and will be placed in the library of both Houses.
Jim Knight: There were 3,421 15-year-old pupils in pupil referral units who gained a qualification in 2007. This is 54.5 per cent. of the total of 6,280 15-year-old pupils. These figures include GCSEs and other equivalent qualifications approved for use pre-16.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what proportion of maintained schools selected a portion of their intake by aptitude in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 
Jim Knight: The Department does not collect data on selection by aptitude. Schools with a specialism may select up to 10 per cent. of their intake by aptitude in modern foreign languages, performing or visual arts, or physical education, and where they did so before 2007, technology and information technology.
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will consider bringing forward proposals (a) to require head teachers to sign statutory declarations to confirm compliance with the Schools Admissions Code and (b) to impose fines on (i) headteachers and (ii) schools for serious breaches of the Code. 
Responsibility for ensuring that schools comply with the School Admissions Code and admissions legislation rests with local authorities and the governing bodies (rather than head teachers) of own admission authority schools. All admission authorities are required to act in accordance with the
School Admissions Code and we announced to Parliament on 17 March further steps to ensure the proper implementation of the Code so that no parent or child is disadvantaged by unfair admission arrangements.
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will consider placing the conduct of schools admissions under the supervision of an independent body; and if he will make a statement. 
Jim Knight: We are committed to ensuring compliance with the school admissions code and admissions legislation, and that admission authorities set fair and lawful admission arrangements. I wrote in January to all admission authorities to emphasise this and remind local authorities and admission forums to challenge unfair or unlawful policies.
As announced in the Childrens Plan in December 2007, we are reviewing the school application and allocation process and are considering how admissions should be managed as part of that review. We will consult on a range of proposals as a result of this review to further strengthen the admissions system in the summer.
Mr. Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how much was spent on (a) primary and (b) secondary school buildings in (i) Jarrow constituency, (ii) South Tyneside, (iii) the north-east and (iv) England in each year since 1997. 
Jim Knight: The Department allocates capital to local authorities and schools, and then relies on the local community to prioritise how it is spent between primary and secondary school buildings. Accordingly, it does not maintain central records on how much capital has been allocated between the two.
1. The amounts spent will, in any year, differ from departmental allocations. This is because of expenditure timing differences, local prioritisation, and other resources that may be available locally.
2. The South Tyneside figure of £21.9 million in 2004-05 includes a £15.8 million PFI allocation, and the South Tyneside allocation of £169.1 million in 2005-06 a Building Schools for the Future allocation of £164 million.
3. The figures include indicative allocations, conventional and PFI credits, for Building Schools for the Future ( BSF) projects for the years 2005-06 to 2007-08. As projects develop, allocations will be subject to change. Actual BSF expenditure will be spread over a number of years.
4. The figures for England are taken from departmental annual reports and published figures, with the addition of PFI credits. The England figures for 2006-07and 2007-08 are subject to change.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|