House of Lords written question – answered am ar 11 Rhagfyr 2009.
Lord Lucas
Ceidwadwyr
To ask Her Majesty's Government for each local authority for which they have data, (a) how many home-educated children are considered to be receiving no education, (b) what is the total number of home-educated children, and (c) how many of the home-educated children considered to be receiving no education (1) are from traveller families, (2) are children who first became home educated in years 10 or 11 with a previous history of irregular attendance, and (3) are children who have not yet been assessed.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Children, Young People and Families)
I attach a table showing the number of electively home educated children in each local authority that responded to the questionnaire on home education distributed in September. The department's policy is not to release any information that might lead to individual children being identified where data released could be combined with other data. As 69 local authorities identified a total of 210 home educated children that they assessed as receiving no education at all, we are not able to release a breakdown of these data by local authority as the numbers for each individual authority would be very small and individual children might be identified.
We did not collect information on the ethnic or cultural background of home educated children receiving no education, nor their age, so we are unable to provide information on the number from a traveller background, or the number that are in years 10 or 11. Home educated children awaiting assessment were included in the data collection as a separate category.
| Local Authority | Total Elective Home Educated (EHE) Population |
| Bath and North East Somerset | 50 |
| Bedfordshire | 70 |
| Bolton | 81 |
| Bradford | 132 |
| Brighton and Hove | 157 |
| Buckinghamshire | 185 |
| Calderdale | 38 |
| Cambridgeshire | 200 |
| Cheshire East | 127 |
| City of London | * |
| Cornwall | 311 |
| Coventry | 60 |
| Cumbria | 261 |
| Darlington | 97 |
| Derby | 79 |
| Devon | 674 |
| Dorset | 157 |
| Dudley | 156 |
| Durham | 110 |
| East Riding of Yorkshire | 139 |
| Essex | 733 |
| Gateshead | 29 |
| Gloucestershire | 224 |
| Greenwich | 96 |
| Halton | 28 |
| Hampshire | 372 |
| Isle of Wight | 141 |
| Isles of Scilly | 0 |
| Kent | 673 |
| Kingston upon Hull | 84 |
| Kingston upon Thames | 44 |
| Kirklees | 67 |
| Lancashire | 465 |
| Leeds | 140 |
| Lewisham | 123 |
| Lincolnshire | 411 |
| Liverpool | 57 |
| Manchester | 91 |
| Medway | 195 |
| Milton Keynes | 96 |
| Newcastle upon Tyne | 52 |
| Norfolk | 375 |
| North East Lincolnshire | 49 |
| North Somerset | 121 |
| Northamptonshire | 183 |
| Northumberland | 46 |
| Nottingham City | 96 |
| Nottinghamshire | 238 |
| Oxfordshire | 329 |
| Plymouth | 135 |
| Reading | 50 |
| Redbridge | 55 |
| Redcar and Cleveland | 27 |
| Rotherham | 70 |
| Sefton | 58 |
| Somerset | 249 |
| South Gloucestershire | 108 |
| Southampton | 82 |
| St Helens | 33 |
| Staffordshire | 244 |
| Stockton on Tees | 31 |
| Sunderland | 66 |
| Surrey | 695 |
| Torbay | 91 |
| Trafford | 35 |
| Wandsworth | 47 |
| Warrington | 39 |
| Warwickshire | 123 |
| West Sussex | 407 |
| Wigan | 72 |
| Wiltshire | 148 |
| Windsor and Maidenhead | * |
| Wirral | 35 |
| Wolverhampton | 141 |
| Total | 11,6** |
* indicates number < than 10 per LA
Yes1 person thinks so
No7 people think not
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.
Annotations
tania berlow
Posted on 21 Ion 2010 8:51 am (Report this annotation)
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.