|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Maintained primary schools( 1) : Number (headcount) of pupils in primary schools with more than 800 pupils( 2) position in January each year 1997 and 2008England|
|(1) Includes middle schools as deemed.|
(2) Excludes dually registered pupils.
Pupil numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.
Legislation limits the size of an infant class during an 'ordinary teaching session' to 30 pupils per school teacher. Section 4 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states that an 'ordinary teaching session' does not include a school assembly or other school activity usually conducted
with large groups of pupils. We do not prescribe every type of activity that would not be classed as an ordinary teaching session, but guidance to schools and local authorities provides the following examples: PE/games, music, singing, drama, watching television and listening to the radio.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many primary schools have more than (a) 30 per cent., (b) 50 per cent. and (c) 70 per cent. of pupils eligible for free school meals. 
|Maintained primary schools( 1) : Number of schools by percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals( 2) , position in January 2008, England|
|Number of schools|
|(1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Includes pupils with sole and dual registration of all ages. Source: School Census.|
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how much his Department plans to spend per school pupil in each local education authority in the East of England in 2008-09; and how much was spent in each academic year since 1997-98. 
The revenue per pupil figures shown in the following table are taken from the dedicated schools grant (DSG) which was introduced in April 2006. They are not comparable with those for the years 1997-98 to 2005-06 because the introduction of the DSG in 2006-07 fundamentally changed how local authorities are funded.
The 1997-98 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 authoritys 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 DCLGs local government finance settlement but education items cannot be separately identified. Consequently, there is a break in the Departments 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, this does not represent the totality of education funding in that year.
|DSG baseline plus grants||DSG plus grants|
1. Price Base: Real terms at 2007-08 prices, based on GDP deflators as at 30 September 2008.
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what assessment his Department has made of the (a) short and (b) potential longer-term effect on children's reading of the Every Child a Reader pilot projects. 
The latest evaluation commissioned by the Institute of Education show Every Child a Reader to have a very positive effect on raising the
attainment levels of children struggling to read at KS1. In schools funded through the programme, children receiving reading recovery lessons made on average a gain of 21 months in reading age in four to five months of teachingwell over four times the normal rate of progress. Children receiving reading recovery are routinely followed up after they have finished their programmes, to make sure that their progress is maintained. After six months children taught through Every Child a Reader had developed a normal rate of learning.
In 2008 Burroughs-Lange published a reading recovery follow up study comparing the literacy progress of young children in London schools. This study followed up the impact on children's literacy in London schools a year or more after intervention had been received. In the 2005-06 school year literacy progress was compared of the lowest achieving children in 42 schools serving disadvantaged urban areas who received reading recovery compared with those in schools which provided a range of other interventions. At the end of the 2005/06 main studythe literacy achievement of children who had received reading recovery (RR) was in line with their chronological age. The comparison group was 14 months behind with an average reading age of five years five months.
In July 2007 the literacy achievement was again compared of those same children remaining in the same 42 schools. At the end of year two the children who had received RR in year one were achieving within or above their chronological age band on all measures and were still around a year ahead of the comparison children in schools where RR was not available. The RR children had an average word reading age of seven years nine months, compared to six years nine months for the comparison children. The gender gap that was noticeable among low attaining comparison children, with boys lagging behind girls, was not evident in RR schools, where there was no gender gap. Writing achievement showed a significant difference between RR and comparison children. At the end of year two, the children who had received RR were able to write twice as many correctly spelled, words as those children who were in the comparison group.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|