Previous Section Index Home Page

14 Oct 2008 : Column 1098W—continued

Alderman Blaxill School Colchester

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the names are of (a) representatives of his Department, (b) representatives of Essex county council and (c) others who accompanied the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Schools and Learners) on his recent visit to the Alderman Blaxill School in Colchester. [226216]

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: When my predecessor, Lord Adonis, visited Alderman Blaxill School in Colchester in September 2008 he was accompanied by Peter Clough, a departmental official.

The Essex county council representatives who were present were Lord Hanningfield, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Schools; Brandon Hallam, Chief Executive of the Policy and International Unit; Terry Reynolds: Director for Learning; and Rosemary Prince, Secondary Area Improvement Manager.

A member of Lord Adonis' private office was also present during the visit.

Antisocial Behaviour

James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) how the taper for the funding of family intervention projects between 2008 and 2011 will operate; and if he will place a copy of the evaluations of the projects in the Library; [194268]


14 Oct 2008 : Column 1099W

(2) when he plans to answer Question 194268, on family intervention projects, tabled on 11th March 2008. [222804]

Beverley Hughes: According to our records a response was sent to the hon. Member on 27 March.

The Secretary of State announced on 5 October 2007 that the Department for Children, Schools and Families would provide up to £18 million ongoing funding for the Family Intervention Projects. The projects will receive tapered funding over 2008 to 2011 to help them move towards securing mainstream funding. In each of these three years projects will receive 70 per cent. of their previous years funding allocation. The final report from the Family Intervention Project evaluation was published in July 2008 and has been placed in the Libraries.

Building Schools for the Future

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many schools among the 500 lowest performing primary schools have received funding under the Building Schools for the Future programme in the last five years. [225512]

Jim Knight: Building Schools for the Future is aimed at secondary schools. It follows that no primary schools have received funding from this programme in the last five years. However we are taking a similarly transformational approach to capital investment for the primary sector through the Primary Capital Programme. Funding for the pathfinder phase commenced in April this year and will be rolled out to all local authorities from 2009-10. Subject to future Government spending decisions, the programme commits to renewing at least half of all primary school building by 2022-23, creating “primary schools that are equipped for 21st century learning, at the heart of their communities, with children’s services in reach of every family”. The programme is supported by £1.9 billion of new capital investment over the three-year period 2008-09 to 2010-11. To access that funding local authorities must develop and agree with the Department a Primary Strategy for Change.

Canvey Island Secondary School: Playing Fields

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will hold discussions with Essex county council on the proposed selling of playing fields at Canvey Island secondary school; and if he will make a statement. [225268]

Jim Knight: There are three secondary schools on Canvey Island—The Cornelius Vermuyden school and Arts college, Furtherwick Park school, and Castle View school. Essex county council has advised the Department that they are unaware of any proposals to dispose of school playing fields.

Children: Assessments

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what percentage of children in care were working towards (a) level 1, (b) level 2, (c) level 3 and (d) level 4 in key stage 1 tests in (i) writing, (ii) reading, (iii) literacy, (iv) speaking and listening and (v) science in each of the last five years. [225843]


14 Oct 2008 : Column 1100W

Beverley Hughes: The number and percentage of looked after children achieving at least level 2 in reading, writing and mathematics in the Key Stage 1 tests for 2005, 2006 and 2007 can be found in table B of the “Outcome Indicators for Children Looked After, Twelve months to 30 September 2007—England” Statistical First Release accessible via the link:

The number and percentage of looked after children achieving at least level 2 in reading, writing and mathematics in the Key Stage 1 tests for 2003 and 2004 can be found in table B of the “Outcome Indicators for Looked-after Children, Twelve months to 30 September 2005—England” Statistical First Release accessible via the link:

Due to a revised assessment procedure figures prior to 2005 are not directly comparable with later years.

Through Care Matters and measures contained in the Children and Young Persons Bill, the Government are taking steps to improve the educational achievement of looked after children. These include putting the Designated Teacher role on a statutory footing and piloting the role of the Virtual School Head in championing the educational outcomes of looked after children.

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families for what reasons a pupil may be working at the level of assessment for but unable to take key stage 2 tests. [225844]

Jim Knight: The national curriculum tests have been designed to ensure that the vast majority of pupils working at the level of the tests can access them. However there may be a small number of pupils who require additional arrangements to access the tests. Arrangements can be made to adjust test conditions to enable fair and equal access to the tests for these pupils.

There are many reasons why a pupil may require access arrangements. Access arrangements would be appropriate for pupils whose learning difficulty or disability significantly affects their ability to access the tests; pupils who are unable to sit and work at a test for a sustained period because of a disability or because of behavioural, emotional or social difficulties; and pupils for whom English is an additional language and who have limited fluency in English.

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) what average number of GCSEs was taken by pupils in maintained schools in each of the last five years, broken down by local authority area; [226029]

(2) how many GCSEs were taken on average by children eligible for free school meals in maintained schools in each of the last five years, broken down by local authority. [226030]

Jim Knight: The information requested is given in the following table for 2006-07, the other years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.


14 Oct 2008 : Column 1101W

14 Oct 2008 : Column 1102W

14 Oct 2008 : Column 1103W

Non-FSM FSM All pupils

Camden

8.9

8.5

8.7

Greenwich

9.0

8.1

8.8

Hackney

8.8

8.1

8.5

Hammersmith and Fulham

9.5

9.5

9.5

Islington

8.5

8.6

8.5

Kensington and Chelsea

9.0

8.8

8.9

Lambeth

9.3

8.2

8.9

Lewisham

9.5

8.8

9.3

Southwark

9.0

8.4

8.7

Tower Hamlets

10.2

10.0

10.1

Wandsworth

9.2

8.3

8.9

Westminster

8.7

8.2

8.6

Barking and Dagenham

10.0

9.3

9.8

Barnet

9.4

8.5

9.2

Bexley

9.7

8.5

9.6

Brent

9.5

8.7

9.3

Bromley

9.5

8.3

9.4

Croydon

9.3

8.2

9.1

Ealing

9.6

8.7

9.4

Enfield

9.0

8.1

8.9

Haringey

8.6

7.5

8.2

Harrow

9.7

8.7

9.5

Havering

9.8

8.1

9.6

Hillingdon

9.1

7.3

8.7

Hounslow

9.3

8.6

9.2

Kingston upon Thames

9.2

8.4

9.1

Merton

8.6

7.4

8.4

Newham

9.4

9.0

9.2

Redbridge

10.1

9.5

10.0

Richmond upon Thames

9.1

7.8

8.9

Sutton

9.5

7.7

9.4

Waltham Forest

9.6

9.1

9.5

Birmingham

9.5

8.5

9.2

Coventry

9.0

6.8

8.7

Dudley

9.2

7.6

9.0

Sandwell

9.1

8.3

9.0

Solihull

9.7

8.5

9.6

Walsall

9.0

6.9

8.6

Wolverhampton

9.7

8.8

9.5

Knowsley

8.5

6.8

7.9

Liverpool

9.3

7.7

8.8

St. Helens

9.9

7.7

9.5

Sefton

9.4

8.0

9.2

Wirral

9.4

7.8

9.0

Bolton

8.9

7.5

8.6

Bury

8.9

8.1

8.8

Manchester

8.9

7.4

8.3

Oldham

8.9

7.5

8.6

Rochdale

9.5

8.0

9.2

Salford

9.1

7.7

8.8

Stockport

8.7

6.9

8.5

Tameside

8.8

7.3

8.6

Trafford

9.6

8.3

9.5

Wigan

9.1

7.5

8.9

Barnsley

8.5

6.7

8.2

Doncaster

9.5

7.7

9.2

Rotherham

8.8

6.8

8.5

Sheffield

8.7

6.7

8.4

Bradford

8.6

7.3

8.3

Calderdale

9.2

7.2

9.0

Kirklees

8.9

7.3

8.7

Leeds

8.7

6.6

8.3

Wakefield

9.5

7.7

9.3

Gateshead

9.8

8.0

9.5

Newcastle upon Tyne

8.8

7.2

8.5

North Tyneside

9.5

8.0

9.3

South Tyneside

9.6

7.8

9.2

Sunderland

9.4

8.0

9.3

Isles of Scilly

10.4

-

10.4

Bath and North East Somerset

9.5

7.3

9.3

Bristol, City of

8.3

7.1

8.1

North Somerset

9.0

7.5

8.9

South Gloucestershire

9.3

7.3

9.2

Hartlepool

9.3

7.6

9.0

Middlesbrough

9.0

7.1

8.4

Redcar and Cleveland

9.2

7.5

8.9

Stockton-on-Tees

9.9

7.4

9.5

Kingston Upon Hull, City of

8.8

7.3

8.6

East Riding of Yorkshire

9.4

7.5

9.2

North East Lincolnshire

8.8

7.3

8.6

North Lincolnshire

9.2

7.3

9.0

North Yorkshire

9.0

7.0

8.9

York

9.3

8.2

9.2

Bedfordshire

8.9

7.1

8.7

Luton

9.1

8.2

8.9

Buckinghamshire

9.8

8.6

9.8

Milton Keynes

9.5

7.1

9.3

Derbyshire

9.0

7.7

8.9

Derby

9.1

8.1

9.0

Dorset

9.5

7.9

9.4

Poole

9.5

6.9

9.3

Bournemouth

9.0

6.7

8.8

Durham

9.5

7.3

9.1

Darlington

8.8

6.5

8.5

East Sussex

8.9

7.3

8.7

Brighton and Hove

9.8

7.1

9.4

Hampshire

9.3

7.3

9.2

Portsmouth

9.8

9.2

9.7

Southampton

8.7

7.3

8.6

Leicestershire

9.3

7.7

9.2

Leicester

8.7

7.7

8.5

Rutland

8.8

7.5

8.8

Staffordshire

9.2

7.9

9.1

Stoke-on-Trent

8.7

7.5

8.5

Wiltshire

9.1

7.2

9.0

Swindon

8.8

7.1

8.6

Bracknell Forest

9.2

8.0

9.1

Windsor and Maidenhead

9.3

6.8

9.2

West Berkshire

9.4

7.6

9.3

Reading

8.0

5.5

7.7

Slough

9.6

8.6

9.4

Wokingham

9.3

7.6

9.2

Cambridgeshire

9.2

7.6

9.1

Peterborough

9.3

8.2

9.1

Cheshire

9.0

7.4

8.9

Halton

9.6

8.0

9.3

Warrington

9.1

7.5

9.0

Devon

9.1

7.7

9.0

Plymouth

8.5

7.0

8.3

Torbay

9.0

7.2

8.8

Essex

9.4

7.8

9.3

Southend-on-Sea

9.9

7.7

9.7

Thurrock

9.4

7.4

9.1

Herefordshire

8.9

6.7

8.8

Worcestershire

9.2

6.9

9.1

Kent

9.4

7.6

9.3

Medway

9.2

7.8

9.1

Lancashire

9.2

7.8

9.0

Blackburn with Darwen

9.4

8.3

9.1

Blackpool

7.8

6.7

7.6

Nottinghamshire

9.0

7.0

8.8

Nottingham

8.7

6.8

8.2

Shropshire

9.4

8.1

9.3

Telford and Wrekin

9.9

8.4

9.6

Cornwall

9.2

7.9

9.1

Cumbria

9.0

6.8

8.8

Gloucestershire

9.3

7.1

9.1

Hertfordshire

9.4

8.2

9.3

Isle of Wight

9.1

8.3

9.0

Lincolnshire

9.3

7.0

9.2

Norfolk

9.0

7.1

8.8

Northamptonshire

9.2

7.2

9.1

Northumberland

9.2

7.7

9.1

Oxfordshire

9.3

7.5

9.1

Somerset

9.5

7.6

9.3

Suffolk

9.2

7.8

9.1

Surrey

9.5

7.9

9.4

Warwickshire

9.4

7.7

9.3

West Sussex

9.2

7.0

9.1

England Average (maintained sector)

9.2

7.8

9.0


Next Section Index Home Page