List 99 is the name commonly given to the list of otherwise qualified teachers who have been judged unsuitable for employment as teachers, or whose employment is limited by specific restrictions, for example to single-sex schools.

In order to be on the list, a teacher will have committed a criminal or professional offence, which renders him or her unsuitable to be employed as a teacher. Certain offences, for example rape, unlawful sexual intercourse and gross indecency, lead to automatic inclusion. Others, such as the use of violence, drug-trafficking or convictions leading to at least a 12-month prison sentence, are also likely to lead to inclusion.

It is the duty of the employer to inform the Department for Education and Skills whenever a teacher is dismissed for such an offence or where a teacher has resigned in circumstances where dismissal would have followed. The police report automatically on all convictions, except for minor traffic infringements.

Whenever the Secretary of State proposes to place a teacher on List 99, the teacher is informed and allowed to make representations. It would, therefore, be impossible for anyone to be placed on it without knowing about it or without a well-established serious reason.

Archimedes

David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, demanded to know how a basic schools’ entitlement could be calculated if an activity-led formula was not used. The Secondary Heads Association’s funding consultant Peter Downes said that schools would be very angry if the approach were abandoned now. Heads wanted a clear view of what is being funded. “This could be a public relations disaster,” he said, adding that the real reason the activity-led formula had been rejected was that “it would expose government funding to public scrutiny”.

EFSG representative Jack Hatch, head of St Bede’s primary in Bolton, said that a properly worked through needs-led formula could have solved some of the inequalities between primary and secondary schools and eliminated the need for additional funding through the Government’s Standards Fund. “But it’s obvious that ministers wanted to keep control of that money,” he said.

Meanwhile, NAHT finance expert George Phipson pointed out that a separate schools’ stream opened up the possibility of a funding route that bypassed LEAs. “Once it is separated that makes it easier to route the funds through a new body, perhaps the local Learning Skills Council or even a private company.”

He pointed out that, from next year, LSCs will take over post-16 funding for sixth forms. “If the LSC proves to be a decent funding route you can begin to see the LEAs come under huge pressure,” he said. “They could be cut out of the picture completely.”

The consultation papers can be seen at: http:www.local.dtlr.gov.ukreviewconsultindex.htm The home page for the Education Funding Strategy Group.

http:www.dfes.gov.ukefsg phil.revell@ukonline.co.uk