|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to support decision-making on changes to sex and relationship curricula in schools; and whether such research includes analysis relating to the age at which it is appropriate to teach specific sex and relationship topics. 
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Details of the evidence considered by the steering group are referenced in its report. As the report acknowledges, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of individual sex and relationships education (SRE programmes). The best evidence comes from evidence reviews, such as Douglas Kirbys Emerging Answers: Research findings on programmes to reduce teenage pregnancies and STIs (2007), which identified the key characteristics of effective SRE programmes. None of the evidence reviews suggest that provision of SRE led to increased levels of sexual activity.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families which of the Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) centrally-funded functions will be undertaken by (a) local authorities and (b) other institutions when the LSC is dissolved. 
The White Paper Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver, set out proposals to replace the Learning and Skills Council with two new systems. Responsibility for 16-19 funding will transfer to local authorities, supported by a new Young Peoples Learning Agency. For adults we propose to build on the demand led approach, including through the creation of a new Skills Funding Agency and strengthened advice and support services for adults and employers.
In response to the consultation on the White Paper we are developing the business models for the delivery of 14-19 and adult skills. This work is determining the functions which will be carried out by local authorities and other organisations, and will enable both Departments to work with partners to develop the appropriate transition plans.
Mr. Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will instigate an investigation into the compliance of North Yorkshire county council's policy on admissions to Harrogate schools with the School Admissions Code. 
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Schools Adjudicator in March 2008 requesting that he report on compliance for admissions in September 2009. The Schools Adjudicator examined a large sample of schools across all 150 local authorities as well as a further 300 foundation and voluntary-aided schools. He identified breaches of the code in more than half of the foundation and voluntary-aided schools, half of which were clear breaches. The Schools Adjudicator has since worked with the schools and has confirmed that the necessary action has been taken to ensure compliance with the code for the 2009 admissions round.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) how much and what proportion of the school development grant has been spent on special educational needs in each year since 2004; and if he will make a statement; 
Local authority Section 52 Budget Statements indicate that, of the 21,704 maintained schools open for all of financial year 2008-09, 21,702 (99.99 per cent.) receive school development grant (SDG). All 131 academies receive equivalent funding to SDG. Schools are free to spend SDG on any purpose to support improvements in teaching and learning in schools, leading to higher standards of attainment for every learner. This can include expenditure on improving teaching and learning for pupils with special educational needs. We do not collect centrally details of how schools spend their SDG, as the Government aim to keep reporting requirements on schools to a minimum. Standards in
schools are not assessed against particular funding streams, so no particular assessment has been made of the effectiveness of school development grant. Standards in schools are assessed through Ofsted inspections and information on pupil attainment.
Jim Knight: School standards grant may be spent by a school for the purposes of the school; for the educational benefit of pupils registered at that school, or for the benefit of pupils registered at other maintained schools; and on community facilities in support of extended services, provided under Section 27 of the Education Act 2002.
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what assessment he has made of (a) the effectiveness of school inspection arrangements in England and Wales and (b) the potential effect of such arrangements on headteacher recruitment. 
Jim Knight [holding answer 11 November 2008]: The Department regularly discusses the effectiveness of school inspection arrangements with Ofsted. New school inspection arrangements are planned from autumn 2009 which include increased proportionality and greater involvement of head teachers and senior leaders.
Ofsted invites all schools to complete a post inspection survey. 94 per cent. of head teachers who responded during 2007-08 were satisfied with the way their inspection was carried out and 82 per cent. believed the benefits of inspection outweigh the negatives. In 2007, the National Foundation for Education Research published Impact of Section 5 inspectionsMaintained Schools in England. The study, which involved over 1,500 schools, showed that most schools strongly valued and supported the inspection process. The head teacher vacancy rate remains low and stable.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many representations his Department has received on changes to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal in the last six months. 
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST) became part of the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber of the new First-tier Tribunal on November 3. The Departments correspondence handling system shows that 103 letters have been answered by Ministers since May in the lead- up to this change and six have been answered by officials. No delegations have so far come to the Department about this issue. The Ministry of Justice, of which the Tribunals Service is an Executive agency, have also received representations.
Tom Levitt: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what progress has been made in narrowing the gap in educational attainment between deaf children and their hearing peers; and what steps he plans to take to further narrow the gap. 
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We have been looking at the data on attainment gaps between hearing impaired children and their peers with the National Deaf Childrens Society, in the context of our public service agreement target to narrow attainment gaps between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. Our national strategies advisers are looking with local authorities at the proportions of children who are achieving less than levels expected for their age at Key Stages 2 and 4, and at the actions being taken to reduce those proportions over time. We have commissioned research from the National Childrens Bureau and the Thomas Coram Research Centre to establish why there are such wide variations between authorities on the identification and classification of children with all types of SEN but using deaf/hearing children and autism spectrum disorders as exemplars.
To help narrow outcome gaps between children with SEN and disabilities (including children whose hearing is impaired) and their peers, we committed £18 million in the Childrens Plan to: improving work force knowledge, skills and understanding of SEN and disability through better initial teacher training and continuing professional development; developing better data for schools on how well children are progressing, and guidance for schools on what constitutes good progress; and continuing to strengthen the position of SEN co-ordinators in schools. The Training and Development Agency is currently consulting on proposals for nationally accredited training courses for new SEN co-ordinators.
We have also committing to funding, from September 2009, additional places on courses leading to approved mandatory qualifications (MQ) for teaching children and young people with sensory impairments. The TDA has been working with interested parties to establish arrangements for making best use of the funding we are making available.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what his most recent estimate is of the number of maintained secondary schools which are entitled to but have not yet become specialist schools; and what his most recent estimate is of the annual cost of increasing the funding of these schools to the average level of schools granted specialist status. 
Jim Knight: There are currently 234 maintained secondary schools which are not specialist and which are eligible to apply to join the specialist schools programme. Should they all join the programme, the extra revenue cost would be around £21.1 million.
Mr. Cameron: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what estimate he has made of the number of teachers who left their employment with between two and five years experience in (a) 2005, (b) 2006, (c) 2007 and (d) 2008 to date. 
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what percentage of teachers who received golden hellos in each year since their introduction have since left the profession. 
Jim Knight: All new entrants to the Teachers Pension Scheme since 1 January 2007 accrue service with a normal pension age of 65. Based on annual service returns up to 31 March 2008, there are approximately 29,000 such active members and approximately 620,000 members accruing service with a normal pension age of 60.
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what proportion of active members in the teachers pension scheme joined on or after 1 January 2007; and what projections he has made of changes to this figure over time. 
Jim Knight: Active members of the teachers pension scheme joining on or after 1 January 2007 accrue service with a normal pension age of 65. Based on data collected as at 31 March 2008, there were approximately 29,000 (4.5 per cent.) such active members. No projections have been made of the changes over time to the proportion of active members who joined on or after 1 January 2007. Projections of how the proportion of members who join after April 2006 would increase over time were made in the context of the Public Services Forum agreement in October 2005. I refer the hon. Member to the answer the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 8 November 2005, Official Report, column 330W, which indicated the staff turnover assumed across the pension schemes for teachers, the NHS and civil servants.
To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) how much has been spent on (a) primary and (b) secondary (i) Bachelor of Education, (ii) other undergraduate, (iii) post-
graduate certificate of education, (iv) graduate teacher programme and (v) other postgraduate teacher training in each of the last five years; 
(2) how much funding has been provided to initial teacher training providers for (a) undergraduate and (b) postgraduate primary teacher training in (i) full-time and (ii) flexible or part-time (A) higher education courses for standard training and (B) non-higher education courses in each of the last five years. 
Jim Knight: The figures contained in the following table show the amounts the Training and Development Agency for Schools has paid to teacher training providers by type and level of initial teacher training for academic years 2004-05 to 2008-09. The breakdown of funding between Bachelor of Education and other undergraduate courses is not available.
|n/a = not available|
1. The figures in the table represent payments made to teacher training providers and do not include payments to trainees.
2. For provider-based (HEI and SCITT) initial teacher training the figures include mainstream funding but not training bursaries.
3. For employment-based initial teacher training the figures include training and assessment grants but not salary grants.
4. In 2004-05 funding for the Registered Teacher Programme and the Overseas Trained Teacher Programme operated on a claim-based approach and equivalent figures to those given from 2005-06 are not available.
Training and Development Agency for Schools
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|