Appendix 1
Government's response to the First Report from
the Children, Schools and Families Committee, Session 2008-09
The Select Committee's conclusions and recommendations
are in bold text.
The Government's response is in plain text.
Some of the recommendations and responses have been
grouped.
Expenditure trends and plans
1. The prospect for the services which are funded
via the Department is that at best the funding provided from it
will be much tighter than it is at present and that, come the
next Spending Review, the likelihood is that, to put it no higher,
the rate of growth in expenditure will be minimal. Those in charge
of schools and children's services more widely need to be planning
now for ways of coping with a much more austere future. (Paragraph
12)
The timing of the next Spending Review is yet to
be announced, but we are liaising closely with local authorities
and our delivery partners in considering the needs of the sector
over the next few years.
2. Capital investment in education, particularly
in Building Schools for the Future and in further education, has
had a significant positive impact, and we are pleased to see the
Government reaffirming its commitment to its capital plans, both
from an educational perspective and for the wider economic benefits.
(Paragraph 13)
3. For the avoidance of doubt, if would be helpful
for the DCSF to make a clear statement about its view of the future
of the BSF programme in response to this report. (Paragraph 14)
The Department remains committed to its aims for
Building Schools for the Future to provide 21st century teaching
and learning facilities for all secondary pupils and staff in
England. This programme has wide support across government including
from the Prime Minister, who emphasized its importance and the
Government's commitment to keeping it properly funded and on track
despite the economic climate, in his evidence to the Liaison Committee
on 12 February. Departmental Ministers have clearly stated that
reviews of the programme, including the Public Value Programme
review, are not aimed at curtailing the programme, but rightly
will ensure that taxpayers get value for money from this major
investment.
DCSF Annual Report
4. If the Department for Children, Schools and
Families is to continue with its Departmental Strategic Objectives,
having information about expenditure on each objective is extremely
useful, and we ask that it be included in the Departmental Annual
Report from next year on. (Paragraph 22)
The Department has worked hard to align its expenditure
with its Departmental Strategic Objectives, and will be presenting
that information in an additional table in its Departmental Annual
Report for 2009. That information will also be reflected in Table
8.3 which we have revised in order to allow the Committee to clearly
understand how our expenditure delivers the objectives set out
in Table 1. The new table is closely aligned to recognisable
delivery units, but exact correlation, given the department's
current organisational structure and our 'arms length' relationship
with local authorities, will not be possible.
This is because of the way in which local authorities
themselves are funded. Their funding partly flows from the Department
of Communities and Local Government in the form of non-ring fenced
Area Based Grants to which several government departments will
have contributed; their activities are also funded through council
tax revenues. They have the authority to flex funding so as to
best meet the needs of the local community, and would find it
very onerous to track exactly the source of funding for every
expenditure decision.
5. There is an argument that in the Departmental
Annual Report for each lead Department on a Public Service Agreement
there should be clear financial information listing the amount
of money each Department has committed to the objective in the
previous financial year and that which it plans to spend in coming
financial years. This is another issue which we will wish to discuss
with the Department in advance of next year's Departmental Annual
Report. It is also an issue which we shall ask the Treasury to
examine. (Paragraph 25)
Although we will be able to apportion the Department's
expenditure to our DSOs, it is more complicated for PSAs. We
will be unable to apportion budgets and expenditure to each PSA
target, particularly as more than one department contributes to
each PSA. These difficulties were explored at a meeting with
officials of the Committee.
6. There is no real accountability in a target
that is set 12 years ahead, so staging points along the way are
essential. Targets must also be allowed to stand until the point
at which they are due to be met, otherwise the goalposts will
be changing constantly. If the targets are set 10 or 12 years
ahead, but are changed at every three-yearly spending review,
no target will be attained or missed, but all will be superseded.
(Paragraph 26)
The 2009 Departmental Report will include all of
the Department's Public Service Agreement targets for 2011 (including
those for any 2020 ambitions such as the levels of childhood obesity).
A 2011 milestone for childhood obesity was included in the 2008
Autumn Performance Report and is "To meet the target ambition
in the CSR period, the prevalence of obesity in 2- to 10-year-olds
needs to be a maximum of 18.1% by 2011".
Deprivation funding
7. One of the DCSF's strategic objectives is to
'close the gap in educational achievement for children from disadvantaged
backgrounds', and one of the main levers to try to achieve that
is undoubtedly increased funding. We would also wish attention
to be paid to authorities and schools with sharply rising needs
arising from population increases. We will monitor the review
process to see how the Government intends to address this perennial
problem. (Paragraph 30)
We want all children to have an equal chance to reach
their potential and succeed. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds
are more likely to need extra support from their school to make
that a reality, which is why the Government has made unprecedented
investment in schools overall, and in particular ensures that
areas and schools with higher numbers of deprived children receive
significantly more funding.
The distribution of Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)
for local authorities already takes into account the relative
disadvantage in each area, high area costs and sparsely populated
areas. The uplift per deprived child is a significant proportion
of the average unit of funding. In total about £3 billion
of the DSG in 2008-09 was for deprivation.
To distribute these sums, local authorities are required
by regulations to have a deprivation factor in their local school
funding formulae. The Department is working with local authorities
to ascertain how much of the funding delegated to authorities
in recognition of their deprivation need is being used to support
deprived pupils via their funding formulae. The result of this
work will be to create a benchmark that we can use to work with
local authorities to address how they target and use their deprivation
funding. It also enables greater transparency in the use of the
funding provided nationally for supporting deprived pupils. We
will monitor the progress of local authorities on how they work
towards achieving the Government's aim to target a minimum of
80% of their deprivation funding to support deprived pupils by
2010-11.
The Department is nearing completion of the compilation
and analysis of the figures from local authorities for 2007-08,
and we expect to publish these figures in March.
We have also sought to address the issue of authorities
experiencing a sharp in-year rise in pupil numbers. Increases
from one January to the next are already recognised, in that funding
for a given financial year is based on pupil numbers in the preceding
January census. But in recognition that some local authorities
can experience a significant increase in pupil numbers between
January and September, in 2008-09 we introduced an Exceptional
Circumstances Grant (ECG). This is effectively a top-up to their
DSG. The grant is triggered where there is a 2.5% or larger increase
in pupil numbers in a local authority; or where their proportion
of pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL) increases
by more than 2.5%. This year four authorities are eligible for
ECG, receiving a total of £264,000.
The DSG Formula Review that was launched at the end
of January 2008 has been looking at the elements that make up
the national DSG formula. To assist the Department to develop
our proposals, we have commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to
conduct further research into four areas:
- funding for Additional Educational
Needs (particularly looking at deprivation and low achievement);
- high cost pupils (including those with special
educational needs);
- activity-led funding; and
- area cost issues.
This work commenced in early 2009 and the findings
will inform our proposals for the new DSG formula. We have also
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:
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/dsgformulareview/.
All stakeholders, including schools, have the opportunity
to contribute to the review and a dedicated email address has
been set up at
schoolfunding.dsgformulareview@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
Gershon targets
8. Presented in this way, the information [in
the 2004 Spending Review: final report on the efficiency
programme, on savings in education] tells us almost
nothing, and we will look for much more of the promised detail
on the achievement of the Gershon targets in the 2009 Departmental
Annual Report. (Paragraph 35)
The 2004 Spending Review: final report on the
efficiency programme published on 24 November as part of HM
Treasury's Pre-Budget Report 2008 documents gave a summary of
performance across Government for the Gershon efficiency targets.
Against Education and Skills it reported efficiency savings at
March 2008 of £4.46 billion against a target of £4.35
billion, and staff reductions of 2,208 at March 2008 against a
target reduction of 1,960 posts during the period April 2004-April
2008.
Full details of the savings achieved for the Efficiency
Target of the 2004 Spending Review are contained in Chapter 3
(pages 109-119) of the Autumn Performance Report 2008 published
on 17 December 2008, after the Committee agreed its report. This
later assessment showed that a revised annual efficiency gain
of £4.57 billion had been achieved for 2007-08.
Any changes in the Autumn Performance Report assessments
will be reported in the 2009 Departmental Report.
9. We ask the DCSF to provide us with more detail
on the issues in relation to teaching assistants that the Public
Value Programme is examining, and what the potential outcomes
might be. We also ask the Department to provide further information
about what aspects of Building Schools for the Future will be
reviewed under the Public Value Programme. One concern is that
BSF contracts at the local level are not transparent, and we ask
that greater transparency is one of the issue that the review
addresses. (Paragraph 38)
The Public Value Programme (PVP) review of Teaching
Assistants is still in progress and it is too early to say what
the outcomes might be. Investment in Teaching Assistants has increased
significantly over the last five years to £1.7 billion a
year, reflecting their status as a key part of the school infrastructure.
Teaching Assistants can make a significant contribution to the
success of schools and the development of children inside and
outside the classroom. They want to make a difference to the life
chances of children and the review is looking at how their contribution
can be maximised.
In the course of this project, we have assembled
a wide range of information and front line views but we need to
develop further the evidence base before we can make progress.
We need to ensure that the review is underpinned by reliable and
robust data, and we are taking care to do just that.
The PVP review of Building Schools for the Future
(BSF) has considered a range of information, which includes the
needs of schools not in BSF, the impact of changing key programme
assumptions, literature reviews of the impact of schools investment
on educational outcomes, and the balance between strategic and
non strategic funding. The review along with the findings from
the National Audit Office and the Major Project Review Group (MPRG)
study of BSF will inform Ministerial decisions on the future roll
out of the BSF programme. The MPRG is a scrutiny panel for major
central government projects, sponsored by HM Treasury. The responses
to the BSF consultation, findings of the taskforce on zero carbon
schools and analysis of revised expressions of interest and affordability
work will also help inform Ministerial decision.
The Department plans to announce the revised prioritisation
of the BSF programme shortly based on the revised expression of
interest provided by local authorities in November 2008.
Partnerships for Schools (PfS) recognises the importance
of a transparent and effective partnership between local authorities
and schools in creating and achieving a shared vision. The Sorrell
Foundation has been commissioned to work with schools and local
authorities to position students as the client. Likewise, the
National College for School Leadership (NCSL) leadership programme
is offered to all schools and local authorities, with the aim
of providing timely advice to school leaders, enabling them to
plan their input to the BSF process at appropriate points to achieve
maximum impact.
PfS produce a suite of documents which describe how
local authorities should engage with schools throughout their
BSF project, including School Strategy for Change Guidance; Change
Management Guidance, and Consultation Guidance. Entry to the BSF
programme is conditional upon a local authority being able to
demonstrate that it has fully consulted with schools on its BSF
investment plans.
Productivity
10. We recommend that the Department undertakes
more wide-ranging cost-benefit analyses and puts them in the public
domain through the Departmental Annual Report. We also recommend
that when the Department makes cost-benefit analyses of specific
sectors those too should be made public in order to provide the
best informed debate possible about the effectiveness of expenditure
on education and related services. (Paragraph 42)
Although we agree with the principle that Cost Benefit
Analyses should be carried out and made readily available, we
do not agree that the Departmental Annual Report is the best place
for this. The Department is committed to carrying out, and publishing,
cost benefit analysis reviews where appropriate and all our research
reports are published and available through our website. These
include a range of evidence on the effectiveness of our policies,
and in some cases cost effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis.
All this evidence is actively brought to bear on the department's
policy and strategy development.
Undertaking robust cost benefit analyses on the Department's
policies is often challenging for a wide variety of reasons. Two
key challenges are first: many factors other than Departmental
policies contribute to our policy objectives and isolating the
contribution of our policies is very difficult. Second, our policies
deliver a wide range of outcomes—from better-educated children
to improved child safety—and since we do not have the means
of converting different outcomes into a common denominator such
as into monetary values, it can be difficult to compare value
for money between policies producing different outcomes. The Department
will continue to look at ways of overcoming these—and other
obstacles—as well as employing techniques of cost-effectiveness
and break-even analysis where full Cost Benefit Analysis is impractical.
Ensuring value for money (VFM) when implementing
policies is a priority for the Department. We carry out and publish
Impact Assessments whenever we develop and implement a policy
that is likely to create a burden on the public, private, or third
sectors. These Impact Assessments are subject to a rigorous internal
clearance process, ensuring that the economic case is assessed
by the Chief Economist. Impact Assessments are an important tool
in enabling us to weigh and present the evidence on the likely
effects of our policies.
In addition to work on the value for money of individual
policies and programmes, the UK is a world leader in measuring
the overall productivity of education. It is a complex issue but
we have already made much progress in developing better measures
of education output and productivity for use in national accounting,
working closely with the Office for National Statistics.
| 
