Supplementary memorandum from Mr Ivan
Lewis MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Young People
and Learning (DfES 11)
During my evidence session on 21 November 2001,
I promised further clarification on several issues:
(1) Response to Andrew Turner's request
for targets linked to the five general objectives. (Q. 253)
The five aims set out at the beginning of the
speech underpin one of the Department's three objectives, namely
"to enable all young people to develop and to equip themselves
with the skills, knowledge and personal qualities needed for life
and work". A full statement of the Department's objectives
can be found in the DfES document "Education and Skills:
Delivering ResultsA Strategy to 2006", which also
contains the associated targets. Targets relating to the five
aims include those for achievement at ages 14, 16 and 19, up to
the year 2004.
In addition, the Secretary of State for Education
and Skills and the Learning and Skills Council have endorsed the
target, proposed by the Modern Apprenticeship Advisory Committee,
that 28 per cent of young people should enter Modern Apprenticeships
by the age of 22, by 2004.
(2) Response to Jeff Ennis's request
for evidence in terms of young people who qualify for EMAs in
terms of breakdown of those going on to vocational courses as
opposed to academic courses as against the non EMA areas. (Q.
The EMA evaluation includes some 20,000 interviews
with young people and their parents. The data collected includes
courses studied and qualifications obtained but there has been
limited analysis of this aspect so far. There is evidence that
young people in EMA pilot areas are more likely to be studying
for vocational qualifications than young people in the control
areasbut without further analysis it isn't possible to
say if this is an EMA effect or merely the result of lower previous
attainment in the pilot areas. We will discuss with the evaluators
how best to explore the issue once they have completed their work
on analysing the attainment data.
(3) Response to Paul Holmes's request
for information on "global figure" for rolling out the
EMA programme across the country. (Q. 268)
Within the original 15 pilot LEAs, which are
the focus of the evaluation, four variants of an EMA approach
are being examined. The cost of a national scheme would depend
on which EMA model was chosen. These 15 LEAs were chosen on the
basis of the research design. However the extension to a further
41 LEAs focused on areas with low participation and high deprivation.
So in the third of the country now covered by the pilot there
are proportionately more EMA eligible young people than would
be the case nationally. We expect to spend around £156 million
on EMAs in the 56 pilot LEAs in 2001-02.
(4) Response to Paul Holmes's requests
for information regarding guarantees for sixth form funding. (Q.
The guarantee was first given in the summer
of 1999. As I indicated to the Committee it has been repeated
many times, most recently in this year's manifesto.
The RTG is based on the information LEAs have
provided to the DfES through their Section 52 budget statements
about delegated funds allocated to schools with sixth forms in
the baseline year of 2000-01. We consulted LEAs on those figures
between August and September this year. We then uprated the figures,
revised where necessary in the light of this consultation, for
inflation at a rate of 3 per cent per year for two years. This
is because the LSC begins funding sixth forms from the start of
the 2002-03 financial year. This process gives a baseline RTG
for each school, which has been notified to the LSC.
The LSC is currently finalising its first sixth
form funding allocations, which it intends to issue in early December.
For each school sixth form two calculations are made. The first
is what the school would receive for 2002-03 under the RTG. The
second is what it would receive under the LSC's own funding forumla.
For the RTG calculation the LSC will adjust
the baseline figures provided by the DfES to reflect pupil number
changes. They will compare the pupil numbers that underpinned
the 2000-01 LEA allocations, as shown on the Section 52 statements,
with the latest available figures, which were supplied to the
DfES in the September 2001 pupil count. They will use the sum
of £2,600 per pupil, both for losses or gains in numbers,
to derive an adjusted real terms guarantee. This is the
figure that the LSC will use when making the 2002-03 allocations,
and is the figure below which the school's sixth form funding
will not fall.
The LSC will also calculate what each sixth
form would receive under its own funding formula, again using
pupil number data from the September 2001 pupil count, plus data
from the same return on the qualifications that are being studied
by those pupils.
Where the real terms guarantee figure is the
higher of the two totals, we have made it clear that a school
will receive that amount. Where the formula figure is higher we
have always said that schools will receive that amount subject
to overall affordability.
The LSC will also carry out this process in
future years. So I can reassure you that a sixth form will not
lose the real terms guarantee if it loses a few pupils one year.
It will have it recalculated each year in line with changes in
pupil numbers, just as its formula funding level will be recalculated
Ivan Lewis MP