§ Ms. ArmstrongTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list, for those local authorities for which numbers are available for the latest date available, how many pupils with statements of special educational needs are recorded as attending maintained special schools under arrangements made by the authority;
(2) if he will list, for those local authorities for which numbers are available, and for the latest date available, how many pupils with special educational needs are recorded as attending non-maintained special schools and independent schools under arrangements made by the authority.
§ Mr. FallonThe number of pupils in maintained special schools, non-maintained special schools and the number of pupils with statements of special educational needs in independent schools in each local education authority in England in January 1990 is given in the table.
79W
Pupils with statements of special educational needs January 1990 Special schools1 Independent schools Maintained Non-maintained City 0 0 0 Camden 421 0 1 Greenwich 744 0 0 Hackney 663 0 4 Hammersmith 481 0 2 Islington 336 0 0 Kensington and Chelsea 98 0 1 Lambeth 958 0 0 Lewisham 505 0 1 Southwark 578 0 0 Tower Hamlets 484 0 0
80W
Special schools1 Independent schools Maintained Non-maintained Wandsworth 740 0 3 Westminster 219 0 21 Barking 190 0 0 Barnet 345 0 26 Bexley 268 0 0 Brent 372 0 0 Bromley 384 43 3 Croydon 488 0 12 Ealing 442 0 37 Enfield 416 0 1 Haringey 329 0 0 Harrow 245 0 1 Havering 268 0 0 Hillingdon 381 101 0 Hounslow 495 0 0 Kingston upon Thames 255 0 0 Merton 254 0 0 Newham 479 0 0 Redbridge 409 16 69 Richmond upon Thames 177 0 0 Sutton 299 0 67 Waltham Forest 755 0 0 Birmingham 2,864 56 12 Coventry 860 0 1 Dudley 546 0 0 Sandwell 889 0 0 Solihull 246 0 2 Walsall 577 0 0 Wolverhampton 501 0 0 Knowsley 668 0 0 Liverpool 1,560 155 0 St. Helens 479 0 99 Sefton 452 178 122 Wirral 790 83 0 Bolton 456 41 0 Bury 285 0 1 Manchester 1,731 0 0 Oldham 627 0 0 Rochdale 540 0 0 Salford 666 0 1 Stockport 397 322 7 Tameside 417 0 0 Trafford 389 0 0 Wigan 795 0 0 Barnsley 220 0 0 Doncaster 731 317 129 Rotherham 613 0 32 Sheffield 868 0 0 Bradford 965 0 0 Calderdale 232 87 33 Kirklees 652 39 0 Leeds 1,132 200 22 Wakefield 635 0 1 Gateshead 415 0 0 Newcastle-upon-Tyne 638 153 5 North Tyneside 425 137 0 South Tyneside 305 0 0 Sunderland 644 0 53 Isles of Stilly 0 0 0 Avon 2,047 0 225 Bedfordshire 1,123 0 1 Berkshire 1,497 240 58 Buckinghamshire 1,512 0 68
Special schools1 Independent schools Maintained Non-maintained Cambridgeshire 1,035 0 88 Cheshire 1,430 173 1 Cleveland 1,379 0 1 Cornwall 313 0 34 Cumbria 425 0 334 Derbyshire 1,453 136 271 Devon 1,713 348 458 Dorset 1,117 86 148 Durham 1,010 0 2 East Sussex 1,361 445 377 Essex 2,592 168 112 Gloucestershire 1,241 67 89 Hampshire 3,820 287 415 Hereford and Worcester 1,326 164 242 Hertfordshire 1,907 67 85 Humberside 1,269 0 0 Isle of Wight 273 47 0 Kent 3,346 483 174 Lancashire 3,238 192 25 Leicestershire 1,114 0 61 Lincolnshire 1,163 0 64 Norfolk 884 0 215 North Yorshire 1,067 209 15 Northamptonshire 1,169 32 65 Northumberland 542 0 50 Nottinghamshire 2,156 79 40 Oxfordshire 820 141 50 Shropshire 611 89 177 Somerset 592 62 252 Staffordshire 2,001 0 164 Suffolk 747 0 111 Surrey 1,775 638 92 Warwickshire 1,383 0 10 West Sussex 1,214 101 254 Wiltshire 698 62 26 England 93,051 6,244 5,623 1 All pupils in special schools.
§ Ms. ArmstrongTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place responses to his circular regarding the application of local management of schools in the Library; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Fallon[holding answer 18 February 1991]: It is not our normal practice to publish responses to consultation on draft circulars. We are considering the responses carefully and will take full account of them in drawing up the final version of the circular.
§ Ms. ArmstrongTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to monitor the effect of(a) retention of funds for special needs by the local education authority in the LMS formula and (b) delegation of special needs funds to maintained schools in the LMS formula.
§ Mr. Fallon[holding answer 18 February 1991]: We are monitoring and reviewing all aspects of the effects of local management—with the help of LEAs, the local authority and head teacher associations, and Her Majesty's inspectorate. Close attention will be paid to the effects of different ways of managing provision for pupils with special educational needs within the context of LMS—local management of schools.
§ Ms. ArmstrongTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account he has taken 81W regarding the responsibilities of local education authorities under the Education Act 1981, when considering the application of LMS to (a) special schools and (b) children with special needs in mainstream education.
§ Mr. Fallon[holding answer 18 February 1991]: Circular 7/88, which guided the preparation of LMS schemes for mainstream schools, stated that the Secretary of State expected LEAs to include within schemes provision for taking into account pupils with special needs as defined under the 1981 Act, including both pupils with and without statements made under that Act. Where provision for pupils with statements of special needs is delegated to schools under schemes of local management, the Secretary of State expects to see LEAs place conditions on governors of schools with delegated budgets, binding them to deliver the provision required by the statements.
My right hon. and learned Friend is currently consulting on proposals to extend local management to special schools.