|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
8 Dec 2010 : Column 347Wcontinued
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have been removed from the list of those expressing an interest in becoming an academy because they were included in error. 
[holding answer 8 December 2010]: Any school may choose to register an interest in becoming an academy, and equally they may request that their
interest is de-registered at any time. We do not collect information on why they have asked that their interest is withdrawn, and we no longer publish such a list. We do, however, on a monthly basis publish the total number of schools which have registered an interest in converting to academy status and the names of those which have formally applied. This was last updated on 3 December and the link can be found on the Academies pages of the Department's website:
under the heading "Schools submitting applications and open academies".
Vernon Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools he estimates will have signed academy agreements under the terms of the Academies Act 2010 by September 2010. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 6 September 2010]: As at 30 September 2010, 144 Academy Orders had been signed covering 152 schools.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will estimate the costs incurred by schools in Coventry in respect of their preparation and presentation of bids for inclusion in the Building Schools for the Future programme. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 1 December 2010]: No estimate has been made by the Department of the costs incurred by schools in Coventry in preparing and presenting bids for BSF projects and we have no plans to estimate them.
The design of the BSF programme meant that significant sums had to be spent by schools before contracts were finalised. We have terminated the BSF programme to prevent waste of that kind. The review of DfE capital led by Sebastian James is looking at alternative designs to avoid waste.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will (a) prioritise communication competency in his forthcoming Schools White Paper and (b) assess the merits of including communication competency as a measurable outcome in the school curriculum; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Gibb: We are determined to create an education system that delivers high standards for all children, and communication skills are an important part of this. All aspects of communication competence are built into the curriculum framework for English in primary schools and are subject to assessment at key stages 1 and 2. The Schools White Paper focuses on a range of key issues including the curriculum. Copies of the Schools White Paper can be found in the House of Commons Library and also at the following link:
http://publications.education.gov.uk/default.aspx?Page Function:=productdetails&PageMode=publications&Productld =CM+7980&
We will be announcing plans for a review of the national curriculum shortly.
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he plans to announce the mechanisms by which the Discretionary Learner Support Fund will operate in the 2011-12 academic year; and what guidance his Department plans to issue to further education institutions on that fund. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 25 November 2010 ]: We plan to allocate the enhanced funding in line with the timetable for overall funding allocations for schools and colleges, which will be made by the end of March 2011.
We will work with representatives of schools, colleges and training providers to finalise the arrangements for the enhanced fund, including how the funding will flow to institutions and what guidance is required to administer the fund effectively.
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether his Department will retain responsibility for the funding allocated to the Discretionary Learner Support Fund when it replaces education maintenance allowance. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 25 November 2010]: The Department for Education will be responsible for the new enhanced discretionary learner support fund. The Young People's Learning Agency will allocate funding to schools, colleges and training providers on the Department's behalf.
Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what funding formula will be used to allocate funding from the Discretionary Learner Support Fund to schools, colleges and sixth forms; and whether additional costs in respect of administration of that fund will be met separately from the funding for students. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 25 November 2010]: We expect the administration of the enhanced discretionary learner support fund to be based on existing arrangements for such funds, which allow schools, colleges and training providers to target support to those young people in greatest need.
Under current arrangements, schools and colleges are able to use up to 5% of their allocation to meet the costs of administration. In finalising the arrangements for the enhanced discretionary learner support scheme the Department will consult with schools, colleges and training organisations.
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether there will be an automatic entitlement to financial support through the Discretionary Learner Support fund in the academic year 2011-12 for students (a) with special educational needs, (b) who are looked after by the local authority and (c) who have a physical or mental disability. 
Mr Gibb: Decisions regarding the new discretionary fund will be made locally, enabling schools, colleges and training providers to target support at those young people in greatest need.
In finalising the arrangements for the enhanced discretionary learner support, the Department will consult with schools, colleges and training organisations and other interested parties, including on how to ensure that the most vulnerable young people, who are facing genuine financial barriers to participation, receive appropriate support to enable them to continue in education or training.
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how student need will be defined in relation to eligibility for assistance from the Discretionary Learner Support fund in the academic year 2011-12. 
Mr Gibb: Decisions regarding the new discretionary fund will be made locally, enabling schools, colleges and training providers to target support at those young people in greatest need. The Government do not intend to dictate to schools, colleges and training providers how they should determine which young people should benefit from the new fund.
In finalising the arrangements for the enhanced discretionary learner support fund, the Department will consult with schools, colleges and training organisations, including on what guidance is required to administer the fund effectively.
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consultation he has undertaken with (a) further education colleges, (b) young people and (c) local authorities on the ending of education maintenance allowance. 
Mr Gibb: The Government took the decision to end the education maintenance allowance (EMA) on the basis of evaluation and other research evidence which indicates that the scheme does not effectively target those young people who need financial support to enable them to participate in education and training.
The changes have been discussed with the Learner Support Consultative Forum, operated by the Young People's Learning Agency, which involves representatives of young people and of colleges. In finalising the arrangements for the enhanced discretionary learner support scheme that will replace EMA, the Department will consult with schools, colleges, training organisations and other interested parties.
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for North West Durham on 15 November 2010, Official Report, column 592W, on education maintenance allowance, on what date the discretionary learner support fund will begin issuing funding to students; what mechanisms will be in place for student support before grants from for that fund are made available for the next academic year; and if he will make a statement. 
The new enhanced discretionary learner support fund will be introduced for the start of the 2011/12 academic year. All young people who apply for an education maintenance allowance (EMA) before 1 January 2011 and are assessed as eligible may continue to receive EMA through to the end of the 2010/11 academic year (providing they meet any conditions set
by their school, college or training provider). Discretionary funding is also available in 2010/11, under current arrangements.
We plan to allocate the enhanced funding in line with the timetable for overall funding allocations, which will be made by the end of March 2011.
Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent estimate he has made of the proportion of young people entering an institution of further education in the 2011-12 academic year who will receive financial support from the Government. 
Mr Gibb: Decisions regarding the new discretionary fund will be made locally, enabling schools, colleges and training providers to target support at those young people in greatest need. It is not, therefore, possible to estimate the proportion of young people entering an institution of further education in the 2011-12 academic year who will receive support under the new arrangements.
The current discretionary scheme supports around 200,000 young people each year.
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many young people resident in Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency have received education maintenance allowance since its creation. 
Mr Gibb: This is a matter for the Young People's Learning Agency (YPLA) who operate the education maintenance allowance for the Department for Education. Peter Lauener, the YPLA's chief executive, will write to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent Central with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Libraries.
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many young people resident in Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency receive education maintenance allowance. 
Mr Gibb: This is a matter for the Young People's Learning Agency (YPLA) who operate the education maintenance allowance for the Department for Education. Peter Lauener, the YPLA's chief executive, will write to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Libraries.
Alok Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what (a) methodology and (b) tools were used to assess the progress of children who did not sit SATs in 2010; and whether the baseline against which such assessments were made was adjusted to take account of those children who did not sit SATs; and if he will make a statement. 
In 2010, 4,005 maintained schools did not administer the key stage 2 national curriculum tests, representing 26% of the 15,515 schools expected to
administer them. It is unfortunate that parents and pupil in those schools will not have benefited from the information that the test results provide. At the end of key stage 2, schools are also required to report a teacher assessment result to parents.
The Department published the national key stage 2 test results on 3 August. Information on progression in English and Mathematics between key stage 1 and key stage 2 was published on 7 October. This information is based on pupils who sat the tests in 2010 and can be viewed at:
The Department's chief statistician has confirmed that the 2010 national key stage 2 test results are representative of the national picture and comparable to previous years.
Margot James: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for (a) the future and (b) future funding of the Family Information Direct programme. 
Sarah Teather: I appreciate the hard work of the organisations that have been funded through the Family Information Direct programme to deliver support to families. As the National Prospectus published by my Department on 22 November 2010 states, we are currently considering inviting bids for a range of future family services delivered online and through telephone services from April 2011; and further information will be available in due course.
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent discussions he has had with Ofsted on procedures for registering and monitoring free schools. 
Mr Gibb: The Department has regular discussions with Ofsted on a range of matters including free schools. As independent schools, free schools, like academies will be subject to a pre-registration inspection, which occurs under section 160(4) of the Education Act 2002. Once open, in the same way as academies, free schools will be subject to regular inspection by Ofsted under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Section 5 inspections apply to maintained schools and academies.
Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his policy is on the provision of outdoor play space at free schools. 
Mr Gibb: Free schools are subject to the requirements of The Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2010. These regulations require that there should be appropriate arrangements for providing outside space for pupils to play safely.
The terms of reference for the current review of capital investment in schools, early years, colleges and sixth forms include the review and reform of the requirements on schools including regulations, design requirements and playing field requirements.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to the answer of 6 September 2010, Official Report, column 350W, on the New Schools Network, what meetings (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have had with representatives of the New Schools Network since 30 June 2010. 
Mr Gibb: Ministers met New Schools Network (NSN) representatives on 1 October, 12 October, 20 October and 10 November 2010. Officials meet NSN on a regular basis to review proposals they have receive.
Bridget Phillipson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of children who would qualify for the proposed pupil premium under each of the three possible sets of criteria set out in his Department's consultation document. 
Mr Gibb: The three options set out in the consultation documents were (a) Free School Meals-either for those eligible in-year; for those eligible in any of the last three years, or for those eligible in any of the last six years-(b) for those children whose parents receive the Out of Work Tax Credit, or (c) using a geodemographic measure such as ACORN or MOSAIC.
For the Free School Meals and Out of Work Tax Credit options, the approximate numbers are as follows:
1. These figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000.
2. Based upon a total pupil population of 6,741,607 FTE pupils (which is Reception to Year-11 pupils in mainstream settings funded through the DSG plus those in academies).
3. Figures are for 2010-11, because this was the basis for the other figures included in the consultation document.
4. These figures are intended only for use in comparing between these four options.
ACORN and MOSAIC are geographical based measures and the number of children who would qualify for the premium would depend on which groups and postcodes are used.
There was a range of responses to the consultation with each option having its supporters. These are being considered and we expect to make an announcement shortly.
Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the funding likely to be allocated to schools in Newham through the proposed Pupil Premium. 
Mr Gibb: We are considering the responses to the consultation on school funding which ended on 18 October, including the question of which deprivation indicator to use. The amount of funding that will be allocated to schools in a constituency will depend on this decision.
Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education by what mechanisms local authorities collect data on the number of children who run away from (a) home and (b) care; and how many children have run away from (a) home and (b) care in each local authority area in each of the last 30 years. 
Tim Loughton [holding answer 4 November 2010]: Local police forces are currently required to share data from the Police National Computer (PNC) on the numbers of missing young people reported to them with the Missing Persons' Bureau in the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA). It is for local authorities to then determine the best ways to work with the police to collate the data on numbers of runaways in their area, whether from home or from care.
It is not known how many children have run away from home or care in each local authority in each of the last 30 years as this information is not collected centrally.
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what functions with respect to school meals his Department will have responsibility for when the School Food Trust becomes a charity; 
(2) what assets are held by the School Food Trust; and whether these will revert to his Department when the Trust becomes a charity; 
(3) for what reasons he proposes to convert the School Food Trust to a charity; 
(4) under what circumstances the School Food Trust will become a community interest company; and what assessment he has made of the potential effects such a change of status will have for (a) schools and (b) pupils. 
Sarah Teather [holding answer 11 November 2010]: The School Food Trust was established as a charity in 2005. From 1 April 2011, it will cease to be an arm's length body, but will continue as a charity. The School Food Trust also plans to set up a community interest company to work alongside the charity.
The Government's review of the School Food Trust, as part of its wider review of arm's length bodies, concluded that schools, local authorities and others would continue to benefit from expert advice about school food, but that this need not come directly from Government. The School Food Trust will therefore continue to have an important role to play in supporting schools and local authorities to meet national nutritional standards for school lunches.
This reflects the Government's commitment to ensuring that pupils can eat healthy, nutritious food. The School Food Trust will continue to work for the benefit of schools and pupils by giving advice, including to government, informed by its expertise and by the practical work it does out in the field.
The Government and the School Food Trust are continuing to work through the practical and legal issues, such as the ownership of assets, in time for its change of status from next April.
The Department for Education will continue to have policy responsibility for the nutritional standards for school food and for the provision of school meals.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools in England are (a) community, (b) voluntary-aided, (c) voluntary-controlled, (d) foundation, (e) academy and (f) city technology colleges; and how many schools in each
category offer vocational educational courses to 14 and 15 year olds. 
Mr Gibb: The Department does not hold information on the courses offered by secondary schools but does hold information on the qualifications entered. The following table gives the number of secondary schools with pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 in each category that were published in the 2009 Achievement and Attainment Tables and the proportion of these schools that had at least one entry in a vocational qualification.
|School type||No. of schools with at least one pupil at the end of KS4||No. of schools with entries in vocational qualifications( 1) (including general vocational qualifications( 2) )||% of schools with entries in vocational qualifications( 1) (including general vocational qualifications( 2) )||No. of schools with entries in vocational qualifications( 1) (excluding general vocational qualifications( 2) )||% of schools with entries in vocational qualifications( 1) (excluding general vocational qualifications( 2) )|
|(1) Vocational qualifications include NVQs, BTEC First Certificates and Diplomas, OCR National Awards and Certificates and other vocationally related qualifications at levels 1 and 2.|
(2) General vocational qualifications include vocational GCSE single and double awards and GNVQs.
John Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will commission an assessment of the risks from asbestos in schools to (a) children and (b) other occupants; 
(2) what estimate he has made of the (a) extent, (b) type and (c) condition of asbestos present in the fabric of maintained schools; 
(3) what measures he has put in place to identify asbestos in (a) secondary and (b) primary schools during refurbishment work; 
(4) what measures he has put in place to prioritise those schools with the most dangerous asbestos for refurbishment or replacement works; 
(5) what measures he has put in place to remove asbestos when refurbishment takes place in (a) secondary and (b) primary schools; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 30 November 2010]: The Department has no plans to commission an assessment of the risks from asbestos in schools. The Government Scientific Advisory Committee Working Group on Action to Control Chemicals (WATCH), which considers all aspects of risk from toxic chemicals including asbestos, is currently examining the risks of lung cancer and mesothelioma from low level exposure to asbestos fibres. Their findings will be made known to the recently formed Asbestos in Schools Steering Group chaired by the Department.
On the numbers of maintained schools containing Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs), I refer you to the answer given to me on the 4 June 2009, Official Report, column 657W, by the former Minister of State for Schools. This stated that:
"Our best estimate in September 2008 was that around 70% of school buildings contain some ACMs."
These schools are likely to contain a range of ACMs, e.g. moulded or preformed asbestos in the lagging used as thermal insulation on pipes and boilers; asbestos insulating board used for fire protection, thermal insulation, partitioning and ducts; and asbestos-containing floor tiles and textured coatings. The responsibility to assess the condition of ACMs falls to the duty holder under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.
Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations, statutory duties are placed on those who are responsible for repair and maintenance of non-domestic premises. In a maintained school, the duty holder is normally the maintaining local authority-where there is delegated funding this duty is often shared with the head teacher. For academies, voluntary aided and foundation schools, the duty holder is the school's governing body. For independent schools, it is the proprietor, governors or trustees. The Department is working with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and asbestos training providers to produce training for head teachers to make sure they are fully aware of their roles and responsibilities.
A recent questionnaire survey and follow-up work of HSE shows that the majority of local authorities were managing asbestos in their schools. Formal enforcement action in the form of 18 improvement notices and one prohibition notice was taken against 10 local authorities requiring improvements to their asbestos management arrangements. The reports of this work and the letter to local authorities reminding them of their responsibilities under the Control of Asbestos Regulations can be found at:
It is for the duty holder to assess, with expert advice, the action which needs to be taken when buildings are refurbished, depending on the location of the asbestos
materials in relation to the location, nature and extent of the works to be carried out. Removal, encapsulation, repair or management in situ may all be appropriate actions. Responsibility for prioritisation of specific projects rests with individual schools and local authorities.
Asbestos does not pose a serious risk if it is in good condition and managed in accordance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations. HSE does not recommend the routine removal of asbestos. Its advice remains that, providing that ACMs are maintained in good condition, they can be left in situ and managed until a building reaches the end of its life, at which time ACMs can be removed without risks to building users who would otherwise be exposed to fibres arising from significant disturbance.
Mr Leech: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review levels of meat consumption in schools for the purpose of improving public health. 
Sarah Teather: The Government have no plans to review the levels of meat consumption in schools. School food must meet the nutritional standards.
Pupils need the right balance of food and nutrients to develop and grow. The nutrient-based standards have been designed to make the food offered healthier by increasing the vitamin and mineral content and by decreasing the fat, saturated fat and salt content. Meat is a good source of protein, vitamins and minerals, such as iron and zinc.
The regulations which set the standards do not specify that schools must provide meat options or vegetarian options. Schools should make every effort to cater for all pupils' needs in order to provide a popular, viable service that is also compliant with the standards. In doing so, many will want to take account of environmental and health considerations.
Mr Mark Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much funding his Department has allocated for youth crime provision in London in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what estimate he made of the amount of such funding allocated in respect of young people aged (a) 12 years and under, (b) between 13 and 17 years and (c) between 18 and 24 years in 2009-10. 
Tim Loughton: For 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 allocated funded for youth crime provision in London is set out as in the following table:
In the same period 13 London boroughs were allocated the following for youth crime provision:
|(1)( )This includes funding allocated for Family Intervention (FIPs) and Think Family reforms. FIPs and Think Family reforms are not solely aimed at youth crime.|
This funding was allocated from a joint pot from the Home Office, Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the then named Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) under the Youth Crime Action Plan to tackle offending by young people aged under 18.
The Ministry of Justice has provided the following amounts to London Youth Offending Teams over the last five years:
These figures include funding from both the Home Office and the Department but cannot be separated out due to disproportionate cost, and are not broken down by age range.
In addition the Department also allocated £4.1 million in 08-09 and £3 million in 2009-10 to the Youth Justice Board to support Intensive Fostering Pilots.
It is not possible to provide a break down for different age categories of young people beyond the broad distinctions set out above.