§ Bob SpinkTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children attended severe learning disability special schools in each of the last five years. [162909]
§ Margaret HodgeInformation relating to special schools with approval to make provision for severe learning difficulties is shown in the following table. Schools may be approved to make provision for more than one area of special need.
Special schools1: Schools approved to make provision for severe learning difficulties—position as at Jan wry each year—England Number of schools Total pupils2 1999 347 25,064 2000 350 25,153 2001 449 35,590 2002 445 37,302 2003 496 41,985 1Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. 2Includes all pupils in the school, not just those pupils with severe learning difficulties. Source: Annual Schools' Census
§ Bob SpinkTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children attended moderate learning difficulty special schools in each of the last five years. [163112]
§ Mr. MilibandInformation relating to special schools with formal approval to make provision for moderate learning difficulties is shown in the table. Schools may be approved to make provision for more than one area of special need.
Special Schools1: Schools approved to make provision for moderate learning difficulties— position as at January each year—England Number of schools Total pupils2 1999 354 39.071 2000 336 37,592 2001 454 47.832 2002 472 51,036 2003 489 51,273 1Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. 2Includes all pupils in the school, not just those pupils with moderate learning difficulties. Source: Annual Schools' Census
§ Jonathan ShawTo ask the secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 22 March 2004,Official Report, column 630W, on 50W special educational needs, if he will make a statement on each of the four cases the Special Educational Needs and Disability Panel has reviewed, the reasons for each being reviewed and the subsequent outcomes. [164758]
§ Margaret HodgeAs stated in the previous Answer, the SEN and Disability Tribunal has identified four cases since September 2002 in which panels have reviewed decisions because they might have included obvious errors. Over the same period panels have reviewed five decisions because the interests of justice appeared to require it. In a further two cases the Tribunal reviewed decisions because there might have been an error resulting from administrative mistakes.
The following table summarises the cases reviewed and the outcomes.
Review date Reasons Outcome 3 December, 2002 Obvious error Decision set aside 8 January, 2003 Obvious error Decision amended 3 February, 2003 Interests of justice Decision stood 9 April, 2003 Interests of justice Decision amended 9 May 2003 Administrative error Decision stood 19 September, 2003 Obvious error/interests of justice Decision amended 18 November, 2003 Administrative error Decision stood 24 January, 2004 Obvious error/Interests of justice Decision amended 24 February, 2004 Interests of justice Decision stood