|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The revenue per pupil figures shown in Table 3 are taken from the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). They are not comparable with those for the years 2004-05 to 2005-06 (in Tables 1 and 2 above) because the introduction of the DSG in 2006-07 fundamentally changed how local authorities are funded.
The 2004-05 to 2005-06 figures are based on Education Formula Spending (EFS) which formed the education part of the Local Government Finance Settlement, plus various grants. This was an assessment of what local authorities needed to fund education rather than what they spent. The DSG is based largely on an authority's previous spending. In addition, the DSG has a different
coverage to EFS. EFS comprised a schools block and an LEA block (to cover LEA central functions) whereas DSG only covers the school block. LEA block items are still funded through DCLG's Local Government Finance Settlement but education items cannot be separately identified. Consequently, there is a break in the Department's time series as the two sets of data are not comparable.
To provide a comparison for 2008-09 DSG, the Department have isolated the schools block equivalent funding in 2005-06 (the baseline); as described above this does not represent the totality of 'education' funding in that year.
Per pupil revenue funding figures for pupils (ages 3-15)for each London borough between 2005-06 and 2008-09 are shown in Table 3. As the DSG is a mechanism for distributing funding, a split between primary and secondary schools is not available. These figures are in real terms and are based on financial years.
|Table 3: Real terms revenue funding per pupil-DSG plus grants|
1. This covers funding through the Dedicated Schools Grant, School Standards Grant, School Standards Grant (Personalisation), and Standards Fund as well as funding from the-Learning and Skills Council; it excludes grants which are not allocated at LA level.
2. Price Base: Real terms at 2008-09 prices, based on GDP deflators as at 9 December 2009.
3. These figures are for all funded pupils aged 3 to 15.
4. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.
5. Some of the grant allocations have not been finalised. If these do change, the effect on the funding figures is expected to be minimal.
Ms Diana R. Johnson: The Department commissioned Sheffield Hallam university to carry out an evaluation of the independent Choice Advice Service in a small sample of local authorities. The evaluation was published on 27 November 2008 and is available electronically at:
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many pupils are receiving one-to-one or small group tuition in (a) secondary and (b) primary schools; and how many pupils he expects to receive such tuition in each such case in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12. 
Ms Diana R. Johnson: As part of the one-to-one tuition programme, funding is available to primary schools to provide approximately 150,000 courses of tuition in 2009-10, and approximately 335,000 courses of tuition in 2010-11 in key stage 2. In addition to this, the Every Child Counts and Every Child a Reader programmes in key stage 1 and the Every Child a Writer programme at key stage 2 will provide approximately 43,000 children with one-to-one tuition in 2009-10, and 87,000 with one-to-one tuition in 2010-11.
Funding for secondary schools from the one-to-one tuition programme is available to provide approximately 140,000 courses of tuition in 2009-10, and approximately 290,000 courses of tuition in 2010-11.
Schools received a personalisation budget of £1.6 billion for the three year period of this comprehensive spending review, and this funding can be used to provide further small group support. The Department does not collect data on the number of pupils receiving this type of support.
To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what training is provided to teachers on asbestos management and
safety; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of such provision. 
Ms Diana R. Johnson [holding answer 24 February 2010]: We have made a commitment to improve the training provided to head teachers and school business managers on asbestos management, and Partnerships for Schools will be working with HSE to produce training materials. These will be signposted in courses run by the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children's Services for new head teachers and school business managers. This work will assist them to understand and implement their role in relation to asbestos management during building work, repairs, maintenance and day-to-day operation of schools.
It is not the role of classroom teachers to monitor, manage or to be accountable for the presence of asbestos in schools. Responsibility for this resides with local authorities and/or governing bodies in ensuring that schools are safe for pupils and staff. Consequently, initial teacher training does not address this topic. While there are Qualified Teacher Status standards relating to health and safety issues and the establishment of safe learning environments, training in relation to these standards will be teaching and learning focused, and not related to issues concerning the construction of the building in which that learning takes place.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many assaults were officially recorded where the incident took place on school premises in (a) 1997, (b) 2005 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available. 
Mr. Coaker: The Department allocates education funding to local authorities so the requested information for Castle Point constituency is not available. In addition it is for local authorities to determine how they spend their funds locally. The per pupil revenue funding figures for schools in England and Essex local authority since 1997 is shown in the following table:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|