|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
5 Jun 2008 : Column 1164Wcontinued
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many children were educated in pupil referral units in (a) 2007, (b) 2006 and (c) 2005. 
Jim Knight: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to PQ 201135 on 28 April 2008, Official Report, column 214W.
To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) how many pupils educated in
pupil referral units achieved five GCSEs at grade A* to C in the last academic year for which figures are available; 
(2) how many pupils educated in pupil referral units achieved GCSEs at grades A* to C in English, mathematics and science and at least two other subjects in the last academic year for which figures are available; 
(3) how many pupils educated in pupil referral units attained no GCSEs at grades A* to G in the last academic year for which figures are available; 
(4) in how many pupil referral units 25 per cent. or more of pupils obtained GCSEs at grades A* to C in (a) 2007, (b) 2006 and (c) 2005; 
(5) in how many pupil referral units no pupils obtained GCSEs at grades A* to C in English, mathematics, science and two other subjects in (a) 2007, (b) 2006 and (c) 2005. 
Kevin Brennan: I refer the hon. Member to the answers to PQ195329 on 20 March 2008, Official Report, column 1417W, and PQ196324 on 26 March 2008, Official Report, column 320W, which give information on the attainment of 15-year-olds in pupil referral units. Further information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Ms Barlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) how many children in maintained schools have been diagnosed with epilepsy; 
(2) what proportion of school children with epilepsy have been identified as having special educational needs. 
Jim Knight: Information on pupils medical conditions is not collected centrally. However, a number of children who have epilepsy as a medical condition also have a special educational need (SEN) and we do collect information on childrens type of SEN.
Information on the number of pupils at School Action Plus and with SEN statements by primary type of need can be found in table 9 of the Statistical First Release Pupil Characteristics and Class Sizes in Maintained Schools in England: January 2008 which can be found at:
Children with epilepsy who also have SEN are likely to be included in categories such as physical disability, autistic spectrum disorder and other difficulty/disability.
Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what assessment he has made of the effect of allocations to academy schools by pupil banding on neighbouring schools with results below the floor target in areas where places at existing schools which are oversubscribed are allocated on (a) distance from the school and (b) faith. 
Banding is not a means of selecting the most able: rather it is a method of ensuring that a school admits a fully comprehensive intake of pupils
with a fair share of pupils of all ability bands. Selection by ability, in contrast, does result in the most able pupils being concentrated in certain schools. This is not a policy aim of this Government, neither in academies nor in general, and this is why we have legislated to prevent any new selection by ability in maintained schools, and why academy funding agreements prevent them from adopting selection by ability.
We have not undertaken any specific research into the effects of banding, either in academies or maintained schools. However, research published this year by Sheffield Hallam university Secondary School Admissions, was positive about the effects of banding, finding that it can mitigate social segregation especially in densely populated areas and that it is a powerful means of balancing intakes both by attainment and social characteristics.
However, admission arrangements should always be developed with an eye on the local context: what may be fair and equitable in one area may not be so in another. In agreeing academy admission arrangements or considering changes to existing arrangements, the Secretary of State seeks to ensure that the arrangements support fair access in the local area.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) what guidance his Department issues to local authorities on the selection of schools for rebuilding; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what role his Department has in regulating the selection by local authorities of schools to be included in rebuilding programmes; and if he will make a statement; 
(3) what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities allocate resources for rebuilding to the schools most in need of rebuilding; and if he will make a statement. 
Jim Knight: Prioritisation of investment in school buildings is decided at local level, where there is best knowledge of local needs and priorities. To support good local decision making in school investment, local authorities and schools are encouraged to operate high quality asset management processes with robust assessments of priorities, aligned with those of central Government. Asset management planning should be a transparent, consultative and rigorous process, based on a survey of the needs of all schools in the area and should address sufficiency, condition and suitability needs. We give schools and authorities, three year certainty of capital funding so that they can plan ahead. All schools should know where their needs, including for rebuilding, are prioritised, and why.
Where local authorities participate in major rebuilding programmes including Building Schools for the Future and the Primary Capital Programme, they must prepare robust Strategies for Change to demonstrate that their investment plans support a strong strategic delivery of education in their areas. Partnerships for Schools, our delivery agency for Building Schools for the Future, and the Department must be satisfied with these strategies before local
authorities can proceed in the programmes. Guidance on preparing these strategies is available through
following the BSF and Primary Capital Programme links.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families whether steps were taken to encourage schools to celebrate St. Georges Day in 2008 with extra-curricular activities. 
Jim Knight: We value the importance of providing opportunities for young people, through the curriculum, to consider for themselves what it means to live in the UK today.
To ensure that young people have the opportunity to explore their own identity and issues around diversity, a recent review of the secondary curriculum added a new strand to the Citizenship programme of study called Identity and Diversity: living together in the UK. Pupils are encouraged to consider these important concepts with their peers and teachers and in doing so develop their understanding of what it means to be a UK citizen.
We are also supporting the Who Do We Think We Are? week in June 2008, encouraging teachers to explore identity, diversity and citizenship with their pupils, in their schools, local communities and nationally.
The Department did not take any discrete steps to encourage schools to celebrate St. Georges day in 2008.
To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many schools rated as (a)
outstanding and (b) good by Ofsted since 2003 have subsequently been placed in special measures; and if he will make a statement. 
Jim Knight: This is a matter for Ofsted. HMCI Christine Gilbert has responded directly to the hon. Member and a copy of her letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
Letter from Christine Gilbert, dated 28 May 2008:
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NUMBER 207866: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, how many schools rated as (a) outstanding and (b) good by Ofsted since 2003 have subsequently been placed in special measures; and if he will make a statement.
Your recent parliamentary question has been passed to me, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, for a response.
Our records are such that it is clearest to provide you with data from the start of the academic year 2002/03 rather than the calendar year. I trust this is acceptable.
As of 23 May 2008, 75 schools judged good or better at inspection since September 2002 have subsequently been placed in special measures. Table A shows which of the 75 schools were judged good, very good or excellent at an inspection preceding the inspection which placed them in special measures, and the year of both inspections.
An explanation of these figures is important. Between September 2002 and July 2005, schools were inspected under the previous inspection framework (commonly known as Section 10), which used a seven-point scale ranging from excellent to very poor. Since September 2005, schools have been inspected under the current inspection framework (commonly known as Section 5), which uses a four-point scale ranging from outstanding to inadequate.
Not all schools inspected under the previous inspection framework have yet been inspected under the current inspection framework, including some that were previously judged good or better. Very few (19) schools judged good or outstanding after September 2005 have been re-inspected since that point. None of these 19 schools has been placed into special measures.
|Table A: Number of schools judged good or better at inspection since September 2002, and subsequently placed in special measures (as of 23 May 2008)|
|Year placed in special measures|
|Year inspected and judged good or better||Judgment||2006/07||2007/08||Total|
A copy of this reply has been sent to Jim Knight MP, Minister of State for Schools and Learners, and will be placed in the library of both Houses.
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills on the likely impact of the new funding rules for students studying for a qualification that is lower or equivalent to one they already hold, with particular reference to the impact on qualified teachers wishing to take the new Masters in Teaching and Learning. 
Jim Knight: The Masters and Teaching and Learning (MTL) will be rolled out to around 2,400 newly qualified teachers starting from September 2009, with a further cohort starting in September 2010: these teachers will be fully funded through the Training and Development Agency for Schools. My Department has discussed with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills their decision that from 2008-09 the majority of new students will not be publicly funded to study for a qualification that is equal to or lower than a qualification they already hold, and are satisfied that it will have no impact on the first two cohorts of TDA funded students taking up the MTL.
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what proportion of qualified teachers working in (a) maintained primary schools and (b) maintained secondary schools have a postgraduate degree in (i) the main subject that they teach and (ii) another subject. 
Jim Knight: The information requested is not collected centrally.