|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what proportion of pupils who received a permanent exclusion were (a) placed in a mainstream school and (b) placed in a pupil referral unit in each of the last 10 years. 
|All schools, excluding independent schools: Pupils known to be eligible for free school meals, as at January 2008, England|
|Number of pupils( 1)||Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals( 2)||Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals( 3)||Percentage of all pupils who are known to be eligible for free school meals( 4)|
|(1) Includes pupils with sole and dual registration. Also includes pupils with other providers in pupil referral units. (2) Pupils who are eligible for and are claiming their free school meal entitlement. (3) Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals expressed as a percentage of the number of pupils in the same type of school. (4) Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals expressed as a percentage of the total number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals. (5) Includes maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools, CTCs and academies. (6 )Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Note: Pupil numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.|
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many schools received a per pupil funding increase of below the minimum funding guarantee in each year since 2003; and if he will make a statement. 
Jim Knight: The minimum funding guarantee was introduced to the school funding system for the 2004-05 financial year. A schools forum may approve variations to the minimum funding guarantee proposed by the local authority that together affect no more than 50 per cent. of pupils in the authority's schools. The purpose of this provision is to allow local authorities and their schools forums to handle anomalies that may arise from the operation of the minimum funding guarantee, since the rules set down in the regulations are unable to cover all local circumstances. Where local authorities propose a variation to the minimum funding guarantee that will affect more than 50 per cent. of pupils, the Secretary of State's approval must be sought.
Primary: 436 from 18,031 schools received a per pupil increase below the MFG level of 3.4 per cent. (data are unavailable for 737 from the 18,031 schools).
Secondary: one school from 3,431 schools received a per pupil increase below the MFG level of 3.4 per cent. (data are unavailable for 71 from the 3,431 schools).
Primary: 478 from 17,087 schools received a per pupil increase below the MFG level of 4.9 per cent.
Secondary: three schools from 3,341 schools received a per pupil increase below the MFG level of 3.9 per cent.
We do not hold information for 05-06 on the number of schools where data are unavailable.
Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on expanding cadet forces within state schools. 
Jim Knight: The independent National Recognition of the Armed Forces study by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) recommended expanding cadet forces within state schools. Lord Adonis and my hon. Friend the Member for Hatton (Derek Twigg), the Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State with policy responsibility for this area, have met twice in recent months to discuss the expansion of cadet forces in state schools, and our Departments will continue work closely together on this issue.
Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will hold discussions with teachers professional bodies on access to cadet force provision in maintained schools. 
Jim Knight: Access to cadet force provision is a matter for individual schools in discussion with the Ministry of Defence. We have no plans to hold discussions with the teachers professional bodies on these matters at this stage.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many (a) secondary and (b) primary schools are not twinned with a school overseas; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what guidance he has provided to (a) primary and (b) secondary schools on road safety issues, with particular reference to the importance of wearing seat belts correctly; and if he will make a statement. 
Kevin Brennan: The Department has not issued guidelines to schools on how children should wear seat belts correctly. In 2001 we issued Safety Education: Guidance for Schools, which includes general guidance on how road safety education may be provided. This guidance can be found at:
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of toilets in English schools; and if he will make a statement; 
Jim Knight: Schools should put as much effort into designing and managing toilets as they do in building and managing other facilities. They should be clean, safe, well equipped and accessible. Children and young people themselves cite the state of school toilets as a top priority. It is unacceptable that they are put off using toilets at schools because they are badly designed, vandalised dirty or hang-outs for bullies. We want pupils to be healthy by drinking plenty of water throughout the day and they cannot do that without feeling safe to use the toilets.
That is why last year for the first time we laid down clear guidance in the form of a specification for design so that schools can use the record amounts of investment in school buildings and facilities to provide the highest quality pupils toilets. The guidance sets out specific design features to combat antisocial behaviour; suggests how floor space can be designed effectively and encourages local education authorities and schools to involve pupils in the design and management of the facilities to foster a sense of pride and ownership.
The required number of toilets in schools in England is set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. Responsibility for applying the requirements of these regulations rests with local education authorities.
Schools and local education authorities should comply with the requirements of the School Premises Regulations and the HSE Workplace Regulations regarding hygiene and cleanliness then school toilet accommodation will be adequate. But these are minimum requirements and we want more than that which is why we issued the guidance last year.
We do not hold survey records on the provision of school toilets but we are confident that local education authorities will have assessed their toilet accommodation as part of asset management planning and together with the schools will have remedied most inadequacies by now.
The bulk of schools capital is allocated by formula to authorities and schools so that they can address their local asset management planning priorities, including the upgrading of toilet and washroom facilities. Research on the use of devolved formula capital shows that around a fifth of schools have improved toilets each year from 2003-04 to 2006-07.
Central Government capital support for investment in schools has increased from under £700 million in 1996-97 to £6.7 billion in 2008-09 and will rise further to £8.0 billion by 2010-11. Progress is being made year-by-year in improving the quality of the school building stock. Given the high levels of funding, authorities have the opportunity to upgrade toilets.
Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) when the Steering Group for the PE, School Sport and Club Links Strategy last met; and what future meetings are planned; 
Kevin Brennan [holding answer 10 July 2008]: Through their membership of the consortium contracted to deliver the PE and Sport Professional Development Programme, AfPE continue to be involved in delivering the national PE and Sport Strategy for Young People. The programme manager also has bi-lateral meetings with AfPE on a regular basis.
The last meeting of the PE, School Sport and Club Links Delivery Board was held on 18 January. Since then, new governance arrangements for overseeing the delivery of the new PE and Sport Strategy for Young People have been introduced. Within these new arrangements, the last monthly Management Board was held on 17 June.
Jim Knight: Information about schools with published results where fewer than 30 per cent. of pupils achieved at least five good GCSEs including English and mathematics in 2007 is in the following tables:
|(1) Leigh Technology Academy was a City Technology College at the time of the 2007 results.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|