|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) what recent progress has been made in closing the funding gap between sixth form colleges and school sixth forms; and if he will make a statement; 
Jim Knight: By the end of 2008-09 academic year I fully expect that we will have reduced the funding gap between schools and colleges to around 5.6 per cent. This is in line with our commitment made in 2004-05 to reduce the gap by 8 percentage points. We will continue to close the gap further as funding allows but our priority is to maximise participation in learning by young people.
The LSC have the detailed information required to calculate what the cost would be to close the funding gap between 16-18 pupils in school sixth forms and sixth form colleges/FE colleges. Mark Haysom, the LSC's Chief Executive, has written to the hon. Member setting out that in the current year the estimated cost of closing the gap would have been more than £135m. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Libraries.
Further to your question to the SOS for Children, Schools and Families and the reply by Jim Knight, Minister for Schools, I am supplying the additional information referred to in his answer.
In his response Mr Knight mentioned that the gap in funding currently stands at 5.6%. Our funding system which came into effect for 2008/09 uses standard funding rates per standard learner number (SLN, a measure of the number of learners and the breadth of their learning). The base rates per SLN in 2008/09 are £2,945 for school sixth forms and £2,860 for FE college learners (including Sixth Form Colleges).
As this is a new system there are no equivalent figures for 2007/08 but one may use the difference between the two base rates (£85) as a proxy for the difference in funding in 2007/08, as the rates have both increased by the 'minimum funding guarantee' of 2.1%. We estimate that the number of SLNs in FE in 2007/08 was 1,002,322. Therefore the cost of bringing up the base funding rate per learner in all colleges would be approximately £85 million. In addition, schools receive a further £50 million towards pension payments for teachers. There are also a number of other factors influencing the funding differences between school sixth forms and FE, which are explored in more detail in a report undertaken for the LSC by KPMG, published on 6 May 2008. This is available on the LSC's website at:
We are continuing to work with DCSF and schools and colleges to review this funding difference and to look at ways of equalising funding.
I hope you find this information useful.
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 11 February 2009, Official Report, columns 2097-8W, on special educational needs: young offenders, what estimate he has made of the cost of undertaking an educational needs assessment within 10 days for a young offender placed in a young offenders institution to the (a) Prison Service and (b) local authority within whose area the young offenders institution is located; and how these costs compare to those which would be incurred if the local authority in which the young offender was resident immediately prior to a custodial sentence being imposed were required to provide copies of relevant psychological reports and assessments within the same time frame. 
(a) It is not possible to separate out the cost of conducting an educational assessment on a child or young person in juvenile custody from other delivery as the cost is incorporated into the hourly rate paid to staff working in juvenile custodial establishments. As custodial establishments vary in size, the larger ones will carry out proportionately more assessments and will therefore benefit from economies of scale in price negotiations within awarding bodies.
(b) Local authorities are currently not responsible for assessing the educational needs of young people in young offender institutions because local authorities do not currently have responsibility for providing education and training for young people in juvenile custody. The current Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill proposes legislation to change this to make local authorities responsible for securing education and training for persons in juvenile custody.
Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2009, Official Report, column 1710W, on Sure Start programme, how many new Sure Start centres were designated in each month in (a) 2007 and (b) 2006. 
|Sure Start childrens centres designated|
Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2009, Official Report, column 1710W, on Sure Start programme, how many new Sure Start centres are planned to be established in each month in (a) 2009 and (b) 2010. 
Beverley Hughes: Local authorities are responsible for planning the delivery of Sure Start childrens centres so that by 2010 there will be at least 3,500 childrens centres, providing universal access to services for children under five and their families. Local authorities successfully exceeded the target for 2,500 Sure Start childrens centres in March 2008. There are now over 2,900 centres offering services to over 2.3 million children under five and their families.
Together for Children, the Departments delivery partner for the childrens centre programme, is supporting local authorities in finalising their plans and timescales for delivery and will monitor progress against those plans.
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) what estimate he has made of the number of children under the age of 16 years who are receiving swimming lessons from Qualifications and Curriculum Authority Level 2-trained swimming teachers; 
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Under the national curriculum for physical education, swimming is compulsory for all pupils in Key Stage 2 in primary schools. Across all primary and secondary schools, 85 per cent. provide swimming.
All primary school teachers with qualified teacher status are able to deliver school swimming, subject to a risk assessment carried out by the head teacher. The recommendation from the Amateur Swimming Association (ASA)the national governing body for the sportis that ideally school swimming is taught by instructors with ASA/UK Coaching Certificate Level 2, and that they should be supported by a class teacher, who has undertaken at least Module One of the ASA National Curriculum Training Programme. Some local authorities insist that school teachers undertake this additional training in order to deliver school swimming in their pools.
The Department does not collect data on swimming teachers or coaches. We understand from the ASA that there were 27,001 ASA/UK Coaching Certificate Level 2 swimming teachers in 1998 and 45,856 in 2008. The Department is not aware of a QCA-based qualification.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what proportion of teachers employed in (a) Hemel Hempstead and (b) Hertfordshire are recorded as being disabled. 
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many male primary school teachers there are working in schools, broken down by indices of deprivation for (a) school location and (b) pupil residence. 
Jim Knight: The following table provides the full-time equivalent number of teachers employed in local authority maintained primary schools broken down by the decile of rank multiple deprivation for school location. The equivalent information broken down for pupil residence is not available.
|Full-time equivalent male teachers employed in local authority maintained nursery and primary schools by decile of rank multiple deprivation. Year: 2008 Coverage: England|
|Deciles of rank of deprivation (percentage)||Number of male teachers|
School Census and The Department of Communities and Local Government Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will make an assessment of the adequacy of provisions for overtime pay for teachers for activities undertaken outside their contracted hours of employment. 
Jim Knight: The statutory School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD), paragraph 52, provides for the relevant body (local authority or governing body) in a maintained school to make such payments as they see fit to a teacher, including a head teacher, in respect of:
(a) continuing professional development undertaken outside the school day;
(b) activities relating to the provision of initial teacher training outside the school day;
(c) participation in out-of-school hours learning activities agreed between the teacher and the head teacher or, in the case of the head teacher, between the head teacher and the relevant body.
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what grants his Department and its predecessors made to Westminster City Council in each year since 2005-06; and what grants are planned for 2009-10. 
Jim Knight: Tables showing the grants allocated by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and its predecessors(1), to Westminster city council for each year since 2005-06, and planned for 2009-10, broken down between revenue and capital funding, will be placed in the Libraries.
The revenue grant totals for 2006-07 onwards are not comparable with figures in 2005-06, because the introduction of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) in 2006-07 fundamentally changed how local authorities are funded for education services.
Before 2006-07 local authorities were funded through education formula spending (EFS). This formed part of the annual local government finance settlement. EFS comprised school functions and local education authority (LEA) central functions, whereas DSG only covers the school functions. The DSG is based on each local authoritys spend on schools in 2005-06, up rated each year for cost pressures and adjusted for changes in pupil numbers. LEA central functions are still funded through the local government finance settlement but cannot be separately identified. Consequently, there is a break in the Departments time series as the two sets of data are not comparable. For information the EFS figure for Westminster in 2005-06 was £97.5 million.
Capital figures exclude PFI credit allocations, and supported borrowing allocations as part of Building Schools for the Future. Allocations for targeted capital projects are shown in the year the project started.
(1 )The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) were established under machinery of government changes on 28 June 2007. The tables only cover those areas of responsibility for children and schools held by their predecessor the Department for Education and Skills and the DCSF
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|