|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals achieved five GCSEs at grades A* to C including English and mathematics in
(a) rural, (b) non-rural and (c) inner London schools in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 
Ms Diana R. Johnson: The information requested for the academic years 2004/05 to 2007/08 is provided in the following table. The first year for which the requested information is available is 2004/05. School level data for 2008/09 are not yet available.
|Pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) at the end of Key Stage 4 in maintained schools in (a) rural areas (excluding inner London), (b) non-rural areas (excluding inner London) and (c) inner London schools achieving five or more GCSEs or equivalent at grades A*-C including English and maths GCSEs, 2004/05 to 2007/08|
|Pupils eligible for FSM in rural schools (excluding inner London) in England||Pupils eligible for FSM in non-rural schools (excluding inner London) in England||Pupils eligible for FSM in inner London schools|
|Number of pupils||Percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C at GCSE or equivalent including English and maths GCSEs||Number of pupils||Percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C at GCSE or equivalent including English and maths GCSEs||Number of pupils||Percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C at GCSE or equivalent including English and maths GCSEs|
National Pupil Database and Achievement and Attainment Tables (final data)
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families in what proportion of schools in each decile of the index of multiple deprivation less than 30 per cent. of pupils obtained five GCSEs including English and mathematics at A* to C grades in the (a) earliest and (b) most recent year for which figures are available. 
|Proportion of schools( 1) in each Index of Multiple Deprivation decile( 2) in which less than 30 per cent. of pupils( 3) obtained five or more GCSEs or equivalent at grades A*-C including English and maths GCSEs, 2004/05 and 2008/09|
|(1) Including only those open maintained mainstream schools with results published in the relevant years Achievement and Attainment tables and with more than 10 pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 on roll. (2) 2007 Indices of Multiple Deprivation at Super Output Area level based on the location of the school. (3) Pupils at the end of Key Stage 4. Source: Achievement and Attainment Tables (2004/05 final data, 2008/09 revised data).|
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families whether he plans to end the three hour limit on lesson observation by headteachers; and if he will make a statement. 
The amount of observation that is planned and agreed should reflect and be proportionate to the needs of the individual teacher and reflect their individual circumstances. The regulations specify a limit of three hours in any review cycle for classroom observation. However, where evidence emerges which gives rise to concern about a teacher's teaching performance a revision meeting is held and additional classroom observations may be arranged. There are no plans to change these arrangements.
Ms Diana R. Johnson: Teaching about a healthier lifestyle is a major part of the framework for Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PSHE) which schools deliver throughout all four key stages (5-16). As a consequence teachers are free to cover particular topics, such as diabetes or asthma, as part of their lesson plans if they feel it is appropriate. The Government have stated their intention to make the teaching of PSHE education statutory and provisions are contained with the Children, Schools and Families Bill which is currently being debated in the House of Commons.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families whether sex and relationships guidance issued under Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 would apply to the teaching of understanding physical development health and well-being in primary schools under the provisions proposed in the Children, Schools and Families Bill. 
Ms Diana R. Johnson: We plan to consult on revised guidance on sex and relationships education (SRE) shortly. The revised guidance is set within the current legislative framework, the statutory programmes of study for science and the non-statutory framework for Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) Education and Citizenship for key stages 1 and 2. It includes guidance on teaching primary school pupils about physical development and how to develop a healthier, safer lifestyle. Subject to the passage of the Bill, further guidance will be developed to support the implementation and delivery of statutory PSHE education in schools which will build upon, rather than replace this guidance.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what percentage of pupils who were (a) eligible and (b) not eligible for free school meals applied to (i) a university and (ii) a Russell Group university in each year since 1997. 
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what estimate he has made of the cost of establishing and maintaining an annual register of home-educated children. 
Ms Diana R. Johnson: In the October response to Graham Badman's "Review of Elective Home Education" and in the Impact Assessment (IA) published as part of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, we estimated that the cost of the registration and monitoring proposals for home-educated children would be around £21 million in the first year and £9.7 million in subsequent years, based on 25,000 home-educated children. We said at the time that the cost estimates for the Home Education proposals were subject to discussion with the Local Government Association (LGA) and would be reviewed in light of their comments.
We received the LGA's comments in December 2009 and we are now having further discussions with the LGA and local authorities to review our thinking on what should be included in the overall costs. We will also need to take into account the recommendations on costs arising from the 16 December Select Committee response. We plan to publish a revised IA as early as possible in January 2010.
Ms Diana R. Johnson: Graham Badman's Review of Elective Home Education in England identified excellent practice where local authorities have engaged in a proactive and supportive manner with home educating parents. His review also recognised that in some circumstances these relationships may be strained or non- existent.
If the registration and monitoring arrangements in the Children, Schools and Families Bill are to work well, local authority officers and others engaged in the monitoring and support of elective home education will need to be appropriately trained. This training must cover the essential differences, variation and diversity in home education practice, as compared with schools.
Our guidance on monitoring will also place an emphasis on supporting home educating families so that local authorities work collaboratively with home educating parents in providing the best possible arrangements for home educated children.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how much funding he expects to be made available to support home educators in Coventry following the proposals made in the report of the Badman review of secondary education. 
Ms Diana R. Johnson: In October 2009, in our response to the Badman Review of Home Education, we published estimates of the overall costs of the monitoring and registration proposals (£21 million first year/£9.7 million ongoing) and for an additional support package for home-educating families (c.£21 million per annum). We have also published estimated costs in an impact assessment for the Children, Schools and Families Bill.
We are currently reviewing the estimated costs following discussion with the Local Government Association and in light of the recommendations rising from the Select Committee Inquiry on Home Education. A revised impact assessment will be issued shortly.
We do not have figures available yet for allocations below national level. We will develop detailed funding methodologies for local authority allocations in line with passage of the Bill and following additional discussions with the Local Government Association and local authorities.
Ms Diana R. Johnson: Parents' week was first established in 2000 and is organised and delivered by the Family and Parenting Institute (FPI) in partnership with a number of national parenting support organisations. The week co-ordinates activities for parents and children across the UK with many hundreds of local events taking place. Each year there is a different theme. The theme of Parents' week 2009 was "The Changing Face of Families".
The total amount of strategic grant received by FPI from DCSF is set out in table A. This strategic contribution enables FPI to provide a national platform to promote parenting and family support on a national level. As part of this, for Parents' week FPI provide guidance, information and support to local organisations and local authorities to run events across the country that celebrate parenting.
|Strengthening Families Grant Programme (£)||Children, Young People and Families Grant (£)|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|