|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which organisations his Department is working with to tackle bullying in schools; and in what year his Department commenced joint working with each such organisation. 
Childline in Partnership with Schools (CHIPS) (since 2002);
Parentline Plus (since 2002);
Anti-Bullying Alliance (since 2004);
Diana Princess of Wales Awards Scheme (since 2004);
BeatBullying (since 2006);
Stonewall/EACH (since 2006); and
Childnet International (since 2006).
In addition, we have also been working closely with the National Strategies in developing the SEAL strategy for social and emotional learning since 2003, and they are currently working with my Department and Ofsted to identify schools with weak and ineffective anti-bullying policies and to provide targeted support to those schools. And we are working with a number of internet service and mobile phone providers to see what we can all do to address cyber bullying among school pupils.
1. Price Base: Real terms at 2005-06 prices, based on GDP deflators as at 27 September 2006.
2. Figures reflect relevant sub-blocks of Standard Spending Assessment / Education Formula Spending (EFS) settlements and exclude the pensions transfer to EFS and LSC.
3. Total funding also includes all revenue grants in DfES Departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to pupils aged 3-19 and exclude education maintenance allowances (EMAs) and grants not allocated at LEA level.
4. The pupil numbers used to convert £ million figures to per pupil are those underlying the SSA/EFS settlement calculations plus PLASC 3-year-old maintained pupils and estimated 3 to 4-year-olds funded through state support in maintained and other educational institutions where these are not included in the SSA pupil numbers.
5. Rounding: Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
6. Status: Some of the grant allocations have not been finalised. If these do change, the effect on the funding figures is expected to be minimal.
Jim Knight: Individual education plans (IEPs), although recommended by the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, are not statutory. Information on how many children have IEPs is not collected centrally.
(a) the number of people assisted in their skills development as a result of RDA programmes;
(b) the number of adults gaining basic skills as part of the Skills for Life Strategy that count towards the Skills PSA Target;
(c) the number of adults in the workforce who lack a full level 2 or equivalent qualification who are supported in achieving at least a full level 2 qualification or equivalent.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 8 February 2006, Official Report, column 994W, on school sanitary provision, how many times he has directed (a) schools and (b) local education authorities to meet the regulations concerning the provision of school toilets and drinking water for pupils. 
The Department does not have record of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills having directed schools or local
education authorities to meet the regulations concerning the provision of school toilets and drinking water for pupils.
Tom Levitt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what weight a local authority should give to a consistent rating of excellent when considering a small rural school for closure under a surplus places reduction strategy. 
Jim Knight: Before publishing proposals to close a school a local authority must consult all interested parties on its proposals, including the school's staff, governors and parents, and other schools and local authorities likely to be affected. The authority must provide sufficient information and allow adequate time for those being consulted to form a view and make their views known, and it must take those views into account in deciding whether to go ahead and publish its proposals.
When deciding proposals to close a school the local authority must take account of statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The guidance does not specify the weightings that decision-makers should apply to the various factors they take into account, but it makes clear that they must be satisfied that closing the school would contribute to raising the standard of provision locally and lead to improved attainment for children. The statutory guidance also includes a presumption against closing rural primary schools. Although this does not mean that no rural primary school will ever close, the case for closure needs to be strong.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of (a) primary and (b) secondary schools recorded incidences of (i) theft, (ii) criminal damage and (iii) assault in each of the last 10 years; how many of these incidents were committed by (A) staff and (B) pupils; and how many of those incidents resulted in the removal of the perpetrator from the school in question. 
The tables provide a breakdown of the number of pupils who have been excluded for a fixed period or permanently from maintained primary and secondary schools for theft, damage and physical assault against an adult or pupil.
|Maintained primary and secondary schools( 1) : Number and percentage of fixed period exclusions for theft, damage and physical assault against an adult or pupil( 2) , 2003/04 and 2004/05, England|
|Maintained primary||Maintained secondary|
|Number||%( 2)||Number||%( 2)||Number||%( 2)||Number||%( 2)|
|(1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Number of fixed period exclusions by reason expressed as a percentage of the total number of fixed period exclusions. Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. Source: Termly Exclusions Survey.|
|Maintained primary and secondary schools( 1) : Number and percentage of permanent exclusions for theft, damage and physical assault against an adult or pupil( 2) , 2003/04 and 2004/05, England|
|Maintained primary||Maintained secondary|
|Number||%( 3)||Number||%( 3)||Number||%( 3)||Number||%( 3)|
|(1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) The distribution of exclusions by reason has been derived from the Termly Exclusions Survey data and applied to the number of permanent exclusions as confirmed by local authorities as part of the School Census checking exercise. (3) Number of permanent exclusions by reason expressed as a percentage of the total number of permanent exclusions. (4) Less than 5 or a rate based on less than 5. Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. Source: School Census and Termly Exclusions Survey.|
Susan Kramer: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding he plans to make available for sprinkler systems in schools in (a) Richmond upon Thames, (b) the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames and (c) London. 
Jim Knight: We do not propose to provide additional funding for the provision of sprinkler systems in new schools. An analysis of recently completed secondary schools showed that with good design and effective project management it is possible to cover the costs of sprinklers within existing funding.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|