Conclusions and recommendations
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)
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)
DSF 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)
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)
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will be superseded.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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
| 
