|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
John Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many nursery nurses per head of population there were in (a) Leeds West constituency, (b) the City of Leeds and (c) West Yorkshire in each year since 2005. 
Dawn Primarolo: These data are not available. However, national data on the numbers and characteristics of staff in the child care and early years workforce is collected through the Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey. The latest survey to be published in the series is for 2008 and was published at the end of September 2009. This can be found at the following website address:
|Maintained primary schools: Key Stage 1 classes( 1, 2 ) Years: Position in January each year: 2001-09 (final) Coverage: England|
|Key Stage 1 classes( 3)||Total number of classes|
|(1) One teacher classes as taught during a single selected period in each school on the day of the census in January.|
(2) Includes middle schools as deemed.
(3) Includes reception classes.
Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many local authorities have applied for safety valve funding to meet increased demand for primary school places; how much has been allocated in each case; what steps he is taking to review the criteria used to make such allocations; and if he will make a statement. 
We are currently appraising the 51 applications we have received for the £200 million of capital funding we have secured as an interim measure to support authorities which forecast exceptional growth in demand for primary school places by 2011. In considering these applications, we have had discussions with a range of local authorities and with representative bodies including London councils and the Local Government Association, to consider the criteria we have used. Our aim is to ensure that this funding is fairly allocated to those authorities with the highest need, where funding the
additional places from other resources would unduly impact on other priorities. We aim shortly to announce allocations. We are also, in the context of the next spending review, working on how to ensure that in the longer term there are high quality permanent pupil places where they are wanted.
To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the per pupil
funding for (a) primary and (b) secondary school children in Leeds West constituency was in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Coaker: The Department allocates education funding to local authorities so the requested information for Leeds West constituency is not available. The per pupil revenue funding figures for primary and secondary school pupils for Leeds local authority in 2004-05 and 2005-06 are as follows. These figures are in real terms:
|Real terms revenue funding per pupil (£)-EFS plus grants|
|Primary (aged 3-10)||Secondary(aged 11-15)||Primary(aged 3-10)||Secondary(aged 11-15)|
1. Price base: Real terms at 2008-09 prices, based on GDP deflators as at 30 June 2009 2. Figures reflect relevant sub-blocks of education formula spending (EFS) settlements and include the pensions transfer to EFS.
3. Total funding also includes all revenue grants in DfES departmental expenditure limits relevant to pupils aged three-15 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 EFS settlement calculations.
5. Rounding: Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.
The revenue per pupil figures shown in the following table are taken from the new Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). They are not comparable with those for the years 2004-05 to 2005-06 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, which has been in place since 2006-07 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 2006-07 DSG, the Department have isolated the schools block equivalent funding in 2005-06; as described above this does not represent the totality of 'education' funding in that year.
The per pupil revenue funding figures for years 2005-06 (baseline) to 2008-09 for Leeds local authority are provided in the table below. As the DSG is a mechanism for distributing funding, a split between primary and secondary schools is not available. The figures as follows are for all funded pupils aged three-19 and are in real terms:
|Real terms revenue funding per pupil (£)-DSG plus grants pupils aged three-19|
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 30 June 2009.
3. These figures are for all funded pupils aged three-19.
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. Figures are not yet available for 2009-10
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what progress has been made towards the Government's target to extend the reading recovery scheme to 30,000 children by 2011; and how many children are currently taking part. 
Ms Diana R. Johnson: Reading Recovery is a one-to-one intervention that sits within the wider Every Child a Reader (ECaR) programme. ECaR delivers a layered approach to support children at KS1 who are not reaching age-related expectations in reading. The target is to extend the ECaR programme to reach 30,000 children by 2011, and we are currently on track to meet this. Currently 19,308 children are taking part in the ECaR programme, with 12,954 of those receiving one-to-one support through Reading Recovery.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the annual cost of the School Improvement and Targets Unit was in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: The annual staffing cost of the School Improvement and Targets Unit in the 2007/08 financial year was £2,183,340. This was the last year that the unit was in existence as there was a reorganisation of departmental policy teams in 2008.
The unit was responsible for the New Relationship with Schools programme, schools causing concern, local authority and school target setting, the Achievement and Attainment Tables, RAISEonline and pupil assessment.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many incidents of alcohol abuse on school grounds involving minors were reported in (a) England, (b) Essex and (c) Castle Point constituency in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
The Department collects information on the reasons why pupils have been excluded, either for a fixed period or permanently. This includes the category for "drug and alcohol related". This data is available for England and Essex in SFR 18/2009 'Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2007/08' which can be accessed at:
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 12 October 2009, Official Report, column 234W, on schools: asbestos, when he expects the evaluation of responses to the questionnaire about the management of asbestos in system-built schools to be completed. 
Ms Diana R. Johnson: Initial evaluation of the responses is complete. It has highlighted the need for further investigation and follow-up action. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) officials will discuss with my Department in November how to take this forward.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what proportion of new (a) primary and (b) secondary schools were fitted with sprinklers in each year since 2005. 
Mr. Coaker: It is our policy, introduced in 2007 and set out in published guidance, that all new schools should have sprinklers installed, except those assessed to be at low risk of an arson attack. It is for local authorities and other promoters of schools to carry out risk assessments, and ensure that sprinklers are installed where deemed necessary. All schools should have adequate fire precautions in place to safeguard life in the event of a fire. Sprinklers are the only fire suppression systems used in schools.
|Number of new BSF secondary schools||Number with sprinklers||Proportion with sprinklers (percentage)|
Of the 74 academies completed, six (8 per cent.) have sprinkler systems installed. 15 of the 19 (79 per cent.) new academy secondary school buildings planned under new funding arrangements will include sprinklers.
We do not collect data on the number of new primary schools which are fitted with sprinklers. We started to collect this data for new secondary schools in April 2009 following my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud's (Mr. Drew) parliamentary question answered on 26 January 2009, Official Report, column 168W.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 2 June 2009, Official Report, column 442W, on schools: standards, for what reasons comparable information for each year since 1997 is not available; and for which years comparable information is available. 
Mr. Coaker: The information provided in the answer of 2 June 2009 was based on a review of the department's field forces, providing support and challenge to LAs, conducted in autumn 2008. Comparable information is not available for other years since this was a one-off exercise and no equivalent exercise had been conducted in previous years. Information about the numbers and costs of all field forces has not been routinely recorded centrally for each year since 1997. To collect this information retrospectively would exceed the cost threshold of £750 applicable to central Government.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the income of the Specialist School and Academies Trust (a) was in each year from 1999 to 2000 to 2007-08 and (b) is planned to be in each year from 2008-09 to 2010-11, from (i) central Government grants, (ii) subscriptions from schools, (iii) private sector donations and (iv) other income; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT) is an independent registered charity which receives income from a range of sources. As such, DCSF does not have responsibility for monitoring its income. Audited accounts are published and available from the Charity Commission.
The DCSF funds SSAT through a range of grants and contracts to support the Specialist Schools and Academies Programmes and a range of other activities designed to raise pupil achievement. The total financial contributions made by DCSF and its predecessors to SSAT over the last eight years for which we have final
information are: £2.395 million in 2001-02; £4.371 million in 2002-03; £11.326 million in 2003-04; £17.796 million in 2004-05; £24.350 million in 2005-06; £35.152 million in 2006-07, £43.578 million in 2007-08 and £29.700 million in 2008-09.
This includes both grants and contracts. DCSF negotiates funding levels each year for individual grants and contracts. We are not in a position to estimate what the level of funding will be in future years-this will depend on our priorities at the time.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|