|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what grants and corresponding allocations are aggregated as other standards funds for the years 2007-08 and 2010-11 in the Schools section of Table 8.3 of his Departments 2008 Annual Report. 
|Departmental report allocation|
|Other standards fund||2007-08||2010-11|
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what grants and corresponding allocations are aggregated within area based grants for the year 2010-11 in the Schools section of Table 8.3 of his Department's 2008 Annual Report. 
|Departmental area based grants figures|
|DCSF grants to local authorities||2010-11 (£ million)|
Mr. Andy Reed: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what his Department's definition of community use in the Building Schools for the Future programme is in relation to sports facilities. 
Jim Knight: There is no strict definition of community use in the Building Schools for the Future Programme. As set out in the Extended Schools prospectus, published in June 2005, the Government have encouraged all schools to offer a core set of extended services by 2010, including wider community access to sports facilities. However, it is up to individual governing bodies to decide the extent to which they do this, since they are responsible for controlling the occupation and use of school premises both during and out of school hours. Governing bodies are also best placed to define what the community is that each school serves.
Secondary schools built or upgraded under the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme must conform to the Department's Building Bulletin (BB) 98, "Briefing Framework for Secondary School Projects". This recommends that each school should have, as a minimum, a four-court sports hall designed to Sport England's specifications that cover community use. BB 98 also includes recommendations for outdoor sports pitches and games courts.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what percentage of schools received a rating of inadequate in their Ofsted report for behaviour in each of the last five years. 
Jim Knight [holding answer 11 May 2009]: This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, Christine Gilbert, has written to the hon. Member and a copy of her reply has been placed in the House Libraries.
Your recent parliamentary question has been passed to me, as Her Majestys Chief Inspector, for reply.
The inadequate inspection outcome was introduced in September 2005 as part of a four-point scale: outstanding, good, satisfactory, inadequate. Table A shows the outcome of the behaviour judgement for maintained schools inspected in each academic year since September 2005.
|Table A: Behaviour in maintained schools inspected each year since 2005/06|
|Academic year||Number of school inspections which included a behaviour judgment||Number of school inspections where behaviour was judged inadequate||School inspections where behaviour was judged inadequate, as a percentage of all school inspections|
|(1) Excludes 59 school inspections using a reduced set of judgments that did not include a judgment on behaviour.|
(2) Excludes 2 school inspections of sixth form schools where only post-16 judgments were made. One of these inspections was judged to have good behaviour at the post-16 level, and the other had no behaviour judgment.
A copy of this reply has been sent to Rt Hon Jim Knight MP, Minister of State for Schools and Learners, and will be placed in the library of both Houses.
|Maintained primary( 1) , state-funded secondary( 1,2) and special schools( 3) : mode of travel as at January 2008, England|
|Number of pupils who walk to school||Percentage of pupils who walk to school||Number of pupils who cycle to school||Percentage of pupils who cycle to school||Total number of pupils for whom mode of travel was supplied( 4)|
|(1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Includes CTCs and academies. (3) Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes General Hospital schools. (4) The collection of mode of travel to school data is only mandatory at pupil level for schools with an approved school travel plan. Data were received for 6,312,120 of the total number of 7,461,230 pupils. (5) Solely registered pupils. Excludes boarders. Source: School Census.|
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Teach Next programme; and if he will make a statement. 
Jim Knight: We have more teachers in the classroom than in 1997. We have a range of routes for people who want to change career into teaching and these can be accessed direct or via transition to teaching. Most take up either postgraduate certificates in education (PGCE) or the employment-based Graduate Teacher programme.
The Becoming a Teacher evaluation (Hobson et al., 2006) found that 97 per cent. of survey respondents reported feeling very or fairly confident that their ITT programme had prepared them to be an effective teacher. However, a higher proportion of employment-based trainees, and a lower proportion of PGCE trainees, than those following other routes reported feeling very confident that their ITT route had prepared them to be an effective teacher.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what percentage of Graduate Teacher Programme places made available by the Training and Development Agency for Schools in 2008-09 were eligible for a salary grant. 
Jim Knight: There were 4,335 salary and training grant places allocated by the Training and Development Agency for Schools and these represent 93 per cent. of all Graduate Teacher Programme places in academic year 2008/09.
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many trainees have failed initial teacher training in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. 
Jim Knight: Information about trainees who did not gain Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) is only available for trainees in their final year of training. The tables show the number of final year ITT trainees for each academic year between 1998/99 and 2006/07 who did not gain QTS in their final year of training and of these the number who left their course before completion and the number where the outcome of QTS is unknown for:
1. Postgraduate ITT trainees
2. Undergraduate ITT trainees
3. Employment Based Routes (EBR) trainees
Information relating to the number of trainees through mainstream courses gaining QTS is only available from 1998/99 onwards. The same information for trainees on employment based routes was only collected from 2001/02 onwards. Figures relating to 2007/08 will be available in July 2009.
|1. Postgraduate ITT trainees|
|Number of postgraduate final year trainees who have not gained QTS|
|Total number of mainstream trainees in their final year||Number of mainstream final year trainees gaining QTS||Known not to have completed course||Undefined outcome||Other outcome||Total|
|* = Less than 5.|
1. Includes trainees from Universities and other Higher Education Institutions, School Centred Initial Teacher Training and Open Universities but exclude Employment Based Routes (EBR).
2. Numbers are individually rounded to the nearest 10 and therefore may not sum.
3. Other outcome includes final year trainees who are yet to complete their course, those with withheld QTS (including those where their skills test were not met, their standards were not met and where both their standards and skills test were not met) and those where the skills test has not been taken (including those whose standards were met and those whose standards were not met).
TDA Performance Profiles
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|