|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1300Wcontinued
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families which private sector companies are participating in Local Education Partnerships to deliver Building Schools for the Future projects. 
Jim Knight: The private sector providers for each of the Local Education Partnerships, including the supply chain is available on the Partnership for Schools website, our Building Schools for the Future delivery partner, and therefore is in the public domain. The web site address is:
Mrs. Maria Miller:
To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 15 October 2008, Official Report, column 284W, how many people with children under five years old
live in each of the local authorities that are in the (a) 10 per cent. most and (b) 10 per cent. least deprived local authorities. 
Jim Knight: The information requested is not available centrally.
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if his Department will consider giving local safeguarding children boards a role in identifying and supporting the children of imprisoned parents. 
Beverley Hughes: Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) set local priorities for inter-agency safeguarding work and already have a role in ensuring that agencies work together to safeguard all children (including those of prisoners). Over the past two years, LSCBs have established themselves as a crucial part of the childrens services landscape. Their role in co-ordinating, and ensuring the effectiveness of, action by partner agencies is vital in the drive to improve safeguarding practice in local areas.
The DCSF is undertaking a stocktake of LSCBs, and I will ensure that this issue is considered as part of this review, to develop recommendations that will help all LSCBs perform at the level of the best. The stocktake will be conducted in close collaboration with local authority and other partners and will report in spring 2009.
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what guidance his Department issued to local authorities on the adequate protection and care of children whose parent or parents are (a) remanded in custody and (b) sentenced to a period of imprisonment. 
Beverley Hughes: Working Together to Safeguard Children sets out how agencies should work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Arrangements made to safeguard children whose parent or parents are remanded in custody or sentenced to a period of imprisonment should be in line with this guidance. Sure Start Childrens Centre Practice Guidance provides guidance on offering personalised and appropriate services for the children and families of prisoners.
Families of offenders and prisoners have been identified to local authorities as a priority group in allocating the significantly increased funding (over £120 million in 2008-11) for targeted initiatives to support families with high levels of need. This includes funding for local authorities to employ expert parenting practitioners and increase the number of evidence based parenting programmes for parents of children at risk, including offender families.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) how many students had (a) applied for an education maintenance allowance (EMA), (b) been processed for an EMA and (c) been issued with a notice of entitlement as at 30 September 2008; 
(2) how many students had been assessed as eligible for the (a) £30 education maintenance allowance (EMA), (b) the £20 EMA and (c) the £10 EMA by (i) 8 September and (ii) 6 October 2008; 
(3) how many and what proportion of applicants eligible for the full education maintenance allowance of (a) £30, (b) £20 and (c) £10 had not received their allowance by (i) 8 September and (ii) 6 October 2008; 
(4) for how many hours Liberatas (a) helpline and (b) online portal were inaccessible between 4 August and 6 October 2008; 
(5) what assessment he has made of the performance of Liberata in handling the education maintenance allowance application procedure; 
(6) what the average time of processing applications for education maintenance allowance was in the period from 1 May to 6 October 2008; 
(7) how many eligible students from each of the lowest three socio-economic groupings had not received their education maintenance allowance by (a) 8 September and (b) 6 October 2008; 
(8) what percentage of eligible applicants have received their education maintenance allowance in each further education college; 
(9) how many unprocessed education maintenance allowance applications there were on (a) 8 September and (b) 6 October 2008; 
(10) what estimate he has made of when (a) all education maintenance allowance applications will have been processed and (b) all eligible students will have received their allowance; 
(11) what steps he has taken to prevent financial hardship for students yet to receive their education maintenance allowance; and whether these apply across England. 
Jim Knight: This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) who operate the education maintenance allowance (EMA) for the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and hold information about applications and payments made under the scheme. Mark Haysom, the LSCs Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the decision by Liberata to reduce the number of its employees in Nelson, Lancashire on the administration of the education maintenance allowance; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what the value is of the contract with Liberata to administer the education maintenance allowance; 
(3) how many students are waiting for their education maintenance allowance to be processed. 
This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) who operate the education maintenance allowance (EMA) for the Department for
Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and manage the contract with Liberata. Mark Haysom, the LSCs Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 16 October 2008, Official Report, columns 1502-03W, on schools: assessments, what the estimated cost is of supplying the information which was not provided in the answer. 
Jim Knight: It was estimated that the cost of answering the closely related questions would be over £1,500.
Mr. Kidney: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will ensure that the formula for distributing education funding will incorporate a factor for sparsity in respect of (a) Early Years and (b) secondary education in future years. 
Jim Knight: The review of the Dedicated Schools Grant is wide-ranging and includes specifically looking at the funding for sparsity and for early years. The aim of the review is to develop a funding formula which distributes resources in line with relative need, recognising the different costs of educating particular groups of pupils and providing education in different areas. Our aim is to support schools and LAs in raising the educational achievement of all pupils and narrow achievement gaps, particularly those from low income and disadvantaged backgrounds.
All stakeholders, including schools themselves, have the opportunity to contribute to the review according to their interests. We have established a DSG Formula Review Group with representation from central and local government, teaching associations, unions representing support staff and governors organisations. Papers and minutes from the group are published on the TeacherNet website at:
It would not be appropriate to give any guarantee about the outcome of the review while it is still in the process of gathering evidence on the main issues. We expect to go out to consultation on proposals for a new funding formula in early 2010 after which proposals will be further developed in the light of the consultation responses.
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 23 October 2008, Official Report, column 577W, on GCSEs, how the £4,000 figure was calculated; and how many hours of work were required to compile the information requested. 
Jim Knight: As both of this question and PQ 227386 relate to A*-C achievement in GCSE modern languages in each year since 1997 we linked these two PQs.
If the information requested could be produced, it would come from the Achievement and Attainment Tables data. That data is essentially hierarchicaleach pupil can sit many exams, each school has many pupils and each local authority has many schools. To deal with that, DCSF manage the data as a series of pre-specified, separate and distinct data files: exam, pupil, school, local authority and national.
That allows the Department to quickly and easily answer questions and produce analyses at a range of different levels and on a range of different measures and indicators. However, those measures and indicators must be pre-specified and the data files are produced under contract for, and delivered to, the Department. A lot of work is put into ensuring the fullest range of relevant measures and indicators are pre-specified and available and updated.
However, it becomes more difficult and expensive to produce analyses where a measure or indicator has not been pre-specified. Essentially, that requires going much further back into the data file production processagreeing classifications, developing and agreeing production rules and processes, aggregating data (e.g. from examination level to pupil level), matching data across levels (e.g. to identify whether a pupil is in a comprehensive school), extensive quality assurance to check the results and then actual production of the tables and analysis required.
The key point is that, at school and pupil level (for the range of years requested), there are not pre-specified variables relating to Modern Foreign Languageswhich would be required to answer these two questions.
The initial estimate of £4,000 was based on the assumption that DCSF would need to ask contractors to create additional variables, aggregations and matches across levelswith associated development and quality assurance.
In some cases, we have the option of carrying out the work ourselves, without involving our contractor in going back to a very early stage in the production process. We have reconsidered on that basis and estimate that would cost £2,200. An explanation of this cost is given as follows:
The main tasks are as outlined earlierdeveloping and agreeing classifications, production rules and processes, aggregating data across levels, matching data across levels, quality assurance and final production. This is a complex data production and manipulation process.
As PQ 224479 asked for 11 years worth of information, at approximately half a days work per year, plus a day extra for checking, this would result in a cost of around £1,300 (circa 45 hours).
PQ 224500 does not require an aggregation up to school level so producing the information is slightly simpler but the process would still require implementing the production rules, creating a suitable variable, aggregating up to pupil level and matching to the pupil file. Again, substantial quality assurance checks would be needed.
This process would need to be repeated for each year and would take longer than the disproportionate threshold of at least three and a half days of HEO-equivalent grades work and at least another day for a different HEO (or higher) to verify it. This amounts to £900 (circa 32 hours).
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what estimate he has made of the changes in grammar school admission numbers consequent upon the Building Schools for the Future programme (1) in the Kent local authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Ashford, (b) Canterbury, (c) Dartford, (d) Dover, (e) Faversham and mid Kent, (f) Folkestone and Hythe, (g) Gravesham, (h) Maidstone and the Weald, (i) Sittingbourne and Sheppey, (j) South Thanet, (k) Tonbridge and Malling and (l) Tunbridge Wells; 
(2) in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Stoke on Trent South, (b) The Wrekin and (c) Wolverhampton South West; 
(3) in the Wirral Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Wirral South and (b) Wirral West; 
(4) in Warwickshire Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Rugby and Kenilworth and (b) Stratford upon Avon; 
(5) in the Trafford Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Altrincham and Sale West, (b) Stretford and Urmston and (c) Wythenshawe and Sale East; 
(6) in Torbay Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Torbay and (b) Totnes; 
(7) in the Sutton Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Carshalton and Wallington, (b) Epsom and Ewell and (c) Sutton and Cheam; 
(8) in the Redbridge Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Chingford and Woodford Green and (b) Ilford North; 
(9) in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Bournemouth East, (b) East Devon, (c) Plymouth, Sutton, (d) Mid Dorset and North Poole, (e) Reading East and (f) Salisbury; 
(10) in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Halifax, (b) Penrith and the Border, (c) Dewsbury, (d) Liverpool, Wavertree and (e) Skipton and Ripon; 
(11) in the Medway Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Chatham and Aylesford, (b) Gillingham and (c) Medway; 
(12) in the Lincolnshire Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Boston and Skegness, (b) Gainsborough, (c) Grantham and Stamford, (d) Louth and Horncastle, (e) Sleaford and North Hykeham and (f) South Holland and The Deepings; 
(13) in the Lancashire Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Lancaster and Wyre, (b) Ribble Valley and (c) Rossendale and Darwen; 
(14) in the Kingston upon Thames Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Kingston and Surbiton and (b) Richmond Park; 
(15) in the Gloucestershire Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Cheltenham, (b) Gloucester and (c) Stroud; 
(16) in the Essex Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Colchester and (b) West Chelmsford; 
(17) in the Buckinghamshire Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Aylesbury, (b) Beaconsfield, (c) Buckingham, (d) Chesham and Amersham and (e) Wycombe; 
(18) in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Edmonton, (b) Orpington and (c) Slough; 
(19) in the Birmingham Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Edgbaston, (b) Ladywood, (c) Selly Oak and (d) Sutton Coldfield; 
(20) in the Barnet Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Chipping Barnet and (b) Finchley and Golders Green; 
(21) in the Walsall Local Authority in the next three years in the constituencies of (a) Aldridge-Brownhills and (b) Walsall South. 
Jim Knight: Each local authority assesses its pupil capacity just before entering the Building Schools for the Future programme, and puts forward proposals in its Strategy for Change (SfC) submission. The following table provides the figures where available for each of the constituencies requested.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|