The children who were not assessed were DEFINATELY included in the total.As were those children whose families refused a visit from the LA and that paerticular LA decided to ignore any written evidence form that family . DCSF your Impact Assessment is entirely wrong .
I have 64 responses from the 74 total LAs and many of them simply added those 'not assessed ' to the 'total not known to be receiving a suitable education'.
If a minister from the DCSF even bothered to look at the actual responses from each LA they would see that some of the LAs had no idea how to answer the question 'total not known to be recieving a suitable education' as they were loathe to admit that they did not know something- so instead of adding the total number of children who they DID consider had a poor education -they entirely left them out in the total -because they DID know they were not recieving a suitable education.
Therefore to make this simpler to understand lets pretend an LA may have had
3 children with no education,
3 not full time ,
3 not suitable,
3 not 'co-operating'
3 not assessed.
Analysing the responses in the 'total not known to be receiving a suitable education' they may have put one of the following answers-
9 (adding up the first rows)
12(adding up the first 4 rows)
15 (adding up all 5 rows)
0 (considering they knew about al the children they had concerns about so would not put a total NOT KNOWN t be recieving.......
I am willing to bet my own life on my analysis being correct as I have put in colums the EXACT answer from the LA's.
A direct challenge- release each LAs answer in table format as I have done. If anyone doubts me here- please check this link (under 74 supplemental LAs) and you can even link directly to each LAs response paper that they handed into the DCSF. http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ao_d0FTV62i4dHR3aDZL...
OR sit down with me and I will show you exactly what evidence I have - it is indisputable and anyone spending more than a cursory 5 minutes will see that.Go on- you know who I am and where I live.
tania berlow
Posted on 21 Ion 2010 8:51 am
The children who were not assessed were DEFINATELY included in the total.As were those children whose families refused a visit from the LA and that paerticular LA decided to ignore any written evidence form that family . DCSF your Impact Assessment is entirely wrong .
I have 64 responses from the 74 total LAs and many of them simply added those 'not assessed ' to the 'total not known to be receiving a suitable education'.
If a minister from the DCSF even bothered to look at the actual responses from each LA they would see that some of the LAs had no idea how to answer the question 'total not known to be recieving a suitable education' as they were loathe to admit that they did not know something- so instead of adding the total number of children who they DID consider had a poor education -they entirely left them out in the total -because they DID know they were not recieving a suitable education.
Therefore to make this simpler to understand lets pretend an LA may have had
3 children with no education,
3 not full time ,
3 not suitable,
3 not 'co-operating'
3 not assessed.
Analysing the responses in the 'total not known to be receiving a suitable education' they may have put one of the following answers-
9 (adding up the first rows)
12(adding up the first 4 rows)
15 (adding up all 5 rows)
0 (considering they knew about al the children they had concerns about so would not put a total NOT KNOWN t be recieving.......
I am willing to bet my own life on my analysis being correct as I have put in colums the EXACT answer from the LA's.
A direct challenge- release each LAs answer in table format as I have done. If anyone doubts me here- please check this link (under 74 supplemental LAs) and you can even link directly to each LAs response paper that they handed into the DCSF. http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ao_d0FTV62i4dHR3aDZL...
OR sit down with me and I will show you exactly what evidence I have - it is indisputable and anyone spending more than a cursory 5 minutes will see that.Go on- you know who I am and where I live.