| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12 Nov 2009 : Column 989W—continued
Physical Education: East of England
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how much funding his Department and its predecessors have allocated for the encouragement of physical exercise in schools in (a) Peterborough constituency and (b) the East of England in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [300114]
Ms Diana R. Johnson: It has not proved possible to respond in the time available before Prorogation.
Primary Education
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many children attended more than three primary schools in the last 12 month period for which figures are available. [298736]
Mr. Coaker: It has not proved possible to respond in the time available before Prorogation.
Primary Education: Cambridgeshire
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many schools in (a) Peterborough constituency and (b) Cambridgeshire have participated in the Primary Capital Programme in 2009. [300112]
Mr. Coaker: It has not proved possible to respond in the time available before Prorogation.
Primary Education: Class Sizes
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what proportion of pupils of primary school age in maintained schools are in classes of (a) fewer than 20, (b) between 20 and 24, (c) between 25 and 28, (d) 29 or 30, (e) between 31 and 35, (f) between 36 and 40 and (g) more than 40 pupils; and if he will make a statement. [295240]
Mr. Coaker: It has not proved possible to respond in the time available before Prorogation.
Primary Education: Free School Meals
Mr. Grogan: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what percentage of primary school children received free school meals in North Yorkshire in 2008-09. [299770]
Ms Diana R. Johnson: It has not proved possible to respond in the time available before Prorogation.
Primary Education: Lancashire
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what recent representations he has received on proposed primary school closures in West Lancashire. [299107]
Mr. Coaker: It has not proved possible to respond in the time available before Prorogation.
Pupil Exclusions
Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many pupils were permanently excluded for each reason for exclusion from maintained primary schools, excluding special schools in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. [297972]
Mr. Coaker: It has not proved possible to respond in the time available before Prorogation.
Pupil Referral Units
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many pupil referral units in each local authority area have closed in each year since 2004 having had (a) no inspections and (b) one inspection at which they were judged (i) unsatisfactory, (ii) satisfactory, (iii) good and (iv) outstanding. [298737]
Mr. Coaker: 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.
Letter from Christine Gilbert, dated 10 November 2009:
Your recent parliamentary question has been passed to me, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, for response.
There were 43 pupil referral units which closed between 1 January 2005 and 3 April 2009, the latest date for which published inspection data are available, and which were not inspected by Ofsted. Table A shows the local authority of each of those 43 pupil referral units, and the year in which they closed.
A further 32 pupil referral units closed between 1 January 2005 and 3 April 2009, having been inspected once by Ofsted.
Two of these were inspected prior to January 2000, when an overall effectiveness judgement was not made. These were both located in West Berkshire Local Authority.
A further eight of these were inspected under the school inspection frameworks used between January 2000 and August
2005, commonly known as Section 10. Under these frameworks, the school's overall effectiveness judgement was made using a seven point scale: excellent, very good, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory, poor and very poor. Table B summarises the local authority, year of closure and inspection outcome of those pupil referral units inspected under Section 10. All eight were either judged satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
The remaining twenty-two pupil referral units which closed between 1 January 2005 and 3 April 2009 were inspected after September 2005 under the school inspection framework commonly known as Section 5. Under this framework, the overall effectiveness judgement was made using a four point scale: outstanding, good, satisfactory and inadequate.
Table C summarises the local authority, year of closure and inspection outcome of those inspected under Section 5.
It is not possible to operate a simple read-across approach from 2000 to the present using these different systems, therefore Tables B and C cannot be directly compared.
A copy of this reply has been sent to Vernon Coaker MP, Minister of State for Schools and Learners, and placed in the library of both Houses.
| Table A: Number of pupil referral units in each local authority which closed since 2004 and had never been inspected by Ofsted | ||||||
| Number of pupil referral units which closed in | ||||||
| Local authority | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | ( 1) 2009 | Total |
| (1)2009 includes those pupil referral units which closed prior to 3 April 2009 only. | ||||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |