Dear Sir or Madam,

Graham
Badman said on behalf of the DCSF and reported in the media on 11
June 2009: "Children educated at home are twice as likely to
be on social services registers for being at risk of abuse as the
rest of the population."

Please supply under the Freedom of Information Act full details
of the statistical evidence on which Mr Badman bases this
assertion.

In particular, please supply copies of all statistical returns from
English local authorities and other agencies to the DCSF which
indicate the educational status (school or electively home
educated) of school aged children on their "at risk" registers.

If, for any reason, Mr Badman's contention was not based on direct
evidence from English local authorties, please supply copies of the
comparative evidence on which he based his statistically based
assertion that "children educated at home are twice as likely to be
on social services registers for being at risk of abuse as the rest
of the population".

If, for any reason, Mr Badman's contention was not based on
statistical evidence from any source, please provide copies of any
anecdotal "evidence" suppled to him by English local authorities
and other agencies which formed the basis for his statistically
based assertion that "children educated at home are twice as likely
to be on social services registers for being at risk of abuse as
the rest of the population".

Finally, please confirm that Mr Badman's contention, and all
evidence used to support his contention, relates only to children
of compulsory education age, since electively home educated
children are by definition all of compulsory education age.

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

Dear Mr/Ms Stafford

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0059859

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Children, Schools and Families's handling of my FOI request
'Evidence in support of Badman's report'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ev...

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

Dear Mr/Ms Stafford

Thank you for your emails dated 1 July asking for information under The
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), and of 31 July (below)
requesting an internal review.

I should like to apologise for the delay in replying. The Department is
aware that it has missed the statutory deadline for reply and is in breach
of its obligations under the Act. I very much regret this - the
Department should meet its obligations under the Act.

While I appreciate that it is in no way a justification I should like to
explain that the Department makes every effort to meet deadlines, but the
delay in responding in this case has been due to the unusual volume of
requests the Department has received in recent months. The Information
Commissioner has been informed of the situation.

The Department normally considers requests for an internal review
following a response being sent to you. I can assure you that your
correspondence is currently being considered and a reply will be sent to
you as soon as possible. If you are unhappy with that reply please
contact me in writing and an internal review will be considered.

Yours sincerely

Suzanne Elliott

Independent Schools Partnerships and Strategy Team

ELLIOTT,[email address]

[1]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0059859

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

You have apologised for the delay and then continued to delay to a
totally unreasonable degree.

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Children, Schools and Families's handling of my FOI request
'Evidence in support of Badman's report'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ev...

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

Dear M Stafford

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your latest correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2009/0075295.
Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

I do not need a new correspondence number that will give you
another 20 days to answer my request which is already two months
late. The original number 2009/0059859 still stands as you have as
yet told me nothing at all.

I do not expect you to take another 20 days when you should have
given me the information at least 40 days ago and have been
breaking the law since then.

All unanswered Foi's are likely be submitted to the Select
Committee inquiry.

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

Dear Mr Stafford,
Thank you for your recent email, dated 29 August, requesting an internal
review of previous correspondence. Could you please advise the case
reference number that would have been assigned to the specific
correspondence in question, in order that we may consider an internal
review of that case.
Yours sincerely,

Josephine Bell

Independent Schools Partnerships and Policy Team
[email address]
[1]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0075295.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/

Dear Josephine Bell

Please stop giving me correspondence numbers are you trying to
confuse us both.

The original number is 2009/0059859 and I think you will find that
a link to the request is contained in the original request for an
internal review as is usually the case.

Given the recent experience the DCSF has had with Fois I do not
think that this 'misunderstanding' can be down to ignorance or lack
of experience and therefore see it as a deliberate stonewalling
tactic.

If the information is not available in the next two days I will be
investigating a referral to the information commissioner because of
effective refusal to answer an Foi or hold an internal review.

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

Dear Stafford,
Thank you for advising the case reference number (2009/00598590). I
appreciate that a link was placed in your request, to the whatdotheyknow
website, however this does not necessarily make it easy to identify your
request through our correspondence handling system. As you will
appreciate, the Department receives thousands of emails and letters every
year and we do always request when sending responses that our reference
number is quoted if you wish to refer back to that correspondence.

I apologise that we have not been able to reply to your above request as
yet.

We will also consider your request for an internal review and I will
advise you as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,

Josephine Bell
Independent Schools Partnerships and Strategy Team
[email address]
[1]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0059859.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/

Dear Sir or Madam,

This information was requested on 1st July well over two months
ago. Are you refusing to hold an internal review?

Can you legally do this?

I find it doubtful, if I do not get my information promptly I will
be referring this to the Information Commissioner.

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Children, Schools and Families's handling of my FOI request
'Evidence in support of Badman's report'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ev...

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

Dear Sir or Madam,

have still not been given the information I requested on 1st July
despite requesting an internal review on 31st July. I have had
apologies and promises that I will get this information but as a
select committee investigation into the Badman review ends on 22nd
September I am fearful that there is intent to delay until after
this time.

I have therefore referred the matter to the information
commissioner.

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

Dear Mr Stafford,
Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 1 July 2009. I have dealt with your
request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

Before answering your request I should like to apologise for the delay in replying. The Department is
aware that it has missed the statutory deadline for reply and is in breach of its obligations under the
Act. I very much regret this - the Department should meet its obligations under the Act. While I
appreciate that it is in no way a justification I should like to explain that the Department makes every
effort to meet deadlines, but the delay in responding in this case has been due to the unusual volume of
requests the Department has received in recent months. The Information Commissioner has been informed of
the situation.

You indicated that:

Graham Badman said on behalf of the DCSF and reported in the media
on 11 June 2009: "Children educated at home are twice as likely to
be on social services registers for being at risk of abuse as the
rest of the population."

You requested

full details of
the statistical evidence on which Mr Badman bases this assertion.

In particular, please supply copies of all statistical returns from
English local authorities and other agencies to the DCSF which
indicate the educational status (school or electively home
educated) of school aged children on their "at risk" registers.

If, for any reason, Mr Badman's contention was not based on direct
evidence from English local authorties, please supply copies of the
comparative evidence on which he based his statistically based
assertion that "children educated at home are twice as likely to be
on social services registers for being at risk of abuse as the rest
of the population".

If, for any reason, Mr Badman's contention was not based on
statistical evidence from any source, please provide copies of any
anecdotal "evidence" suppled to him by English local authorities
and other agencies which formed the basis for his statistically
based assertion that "children educated at home are twice as likely
to be on social services registers for being at risk of abuse as
the rest of the population".

Finally, please confirm that Mr Badman's contention, and all
evidence used to support his contention, relates only to children
of compulsory education age, since electively home educated
children are by definition all of compulsory education age.

I am not clear which media reports quoted Mr Badman in the way that you suggest above. For information a
link to the Department's press release of 11 June is here:

[1]http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi...

I think it is likely that some confusion has arisen with the statement at paragraph 8.12 of the report
of the review which indicated that 'the number of children known to children's social care in some local
authorities is disproportionately high relative to the size of their home educating population'.

As you will appreciate the Department cannot consider the release of information which it does not hold,
but with regard to your requests we have taken them to refer to the information underpinning the
reference in paragraph 8.12 as this is likely to be more helpful to you. As background, a copy
of information that has already been released to other FOI requesters can be found attached to the
Department reply at

[2]http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage....
There is a calculation error in the fourth point of this release. This has however been released
because it is information which the Department holds and which appears to be within - or most nearly
within - scope of your request, and which does not engage exemptions under the Act. I understand that
the error does not affect the overall findings at paragraph 8.12 of Mr Badman's report.

The Department holds other information within scope of your requests as we have interpreted them, but it
is being withheld because the following absolute exemptions under the Act apply :

Section 40. Having carefully reviewed the information, the Department considers that the absolute
exemption at section 40 of the Act is engaged because the some of information requested constitutes
personal data, disclosure of which would contravene the data protection principles. Data are `personal
data' if, taken with `other information' they enable a living individual to whom the data relate to be
identified.

Section 41 (information provided in confidence) is engaged because this information was imparted in
circumstances whereby those providing it did so in the expectation that it would remain confidential
because of its very nature. The Department therefore considers that disclosure of it to the public would
constitute an actionable breach of confidence.

In addition the following qualified exemption, requiring a public interest test, is engaged:

Section 38(1)(a) and (b) this section 38 provides that information is exempt if its disclosure under the
Act would, or would be likely, to

(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual; or

(b) endanger the safety of any individual.

This exemption is subject to the public interest test which means that even where prejudice or likely
prejudice can be demonstrated, it is still necessary to consider whether in all the circumstances of the
case the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
This exemption covers events that could reasonably be expected but do not have to be definitely
foreseeable.

The case for disclosure of information protected by this exemption rests mainly on the desirability of
greater openness for the purposes of increasing public understanding and trust, and on encouraging
greater accountability.

Conversely, it is reasonable to expect that the release of any information which might lead to the
identification of individuals or families might result in a deterrent effect to participation in, and
co-operation with, the appropriate safeguarding processes in the future, leading to increased risk to
vulnerable children. Under certain circumstances unlawful action might be taken against those thought to
be in some way culpable. Such action could never be justified, nor would release of information leading
to identification or possibly to misidentification of individuals. The most effective precaution which
could be taken to prevent anticipated danger to individuals lies in not disclosing information which
could put them at risk.

Having carried out the balancing test, the Department takes the view that it is not in the public
interest for the any of the further information to be released.

The information supplied to you is protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Any
documents produced by government officials will be covered by Crown Copyright. You are free to use the
information for your own purposes, including any non-commercial research you are doing and for the
purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for example commercial publication, would require the
permission of the copyright holder and is regulated by the Reuse of Public Sector Information
Regulations 2005. You can find details on the arrangements for re-using Crown Copyright at:

Office of Public Sector Information
Information Policy Team
Kew
Richmond
Surrey
TW9 4DU

Email: [3][email address]

Any information which is not subject to Crown Copyright continues to be protected by the copyright of
the person, or organisation, from which the information originated. You must ensure that you gain their
permission before reproducing such information.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference
number above in any future communications.

If you are unhappy with the way your request has been handled, you should make a complaint to the
Department by writing to me within two calendar months of the date of this letter. Your complaint will
be considered by an independent review panel, who were not involved in the original consideration of
your request.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint to the Department, you may then contact the
Information Commissioner's Office.
Yours sincerely,

Josephine Bell
Independent Schools Independent Schools and Partnerships Team
[email address]
[4]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0059859.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi...
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi...
2. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage...
3. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your delayed reply to my FOI made on 1st July 2009;
it has taken 80 days, four times your legal limit for you to refuse
to give us this information.

We have some specific comments on your letter.

1) You said:

‘I think it is likely that some confusion has arisen with the
statement at paragraph 8.12 of the report of the review which
indicated that 'the number of children known to children's social
care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative
to the size of theirhome educating population'.

Yes and we feel strongly that this misunderstanding could have been
entirely avoided if (a) a properly designed questionnaires had been
used to collect the data from local authorities in the first
instance; and (b) there had been full disclosure of a summary of
the data and its sources in the report when it was published. It is
unacceptable that so many people have had to make FOI requests to
get at the evidence unpinning paragraph 8.12. If there is any
confusion it appears to fall at the door of the Department about
what constitutes good practice in policy making. We still await the
statistical evidence underpinning the claim made in paragraph 8.12.

2) You go on to say:

‘As background, a copy of information that has already been
released to other FOI requesters can be found attached to the
Department reply at
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage....
There is a calculation error in the fourth point of this release.’

Please confirm whether the ‘fourth point’ is the statement:

‘Extrapolating to the national level (150 LAs), this means around
1350 home education children are known to social care in some
capacity (6.75%).’

Also please let us know the nature of this error and what the
‘fourth point’ should have said.

3) In addition:

‘Section 40. Having carefully reviewed the information, the
Department considers that the absolute exemption at section 40 of
the Act is engaged because the some of information requested
constitutes personal data, disclosure of which would contravene the
data protection principles. Data are 'personal data' if, taken with
'other information' they enable a living individual to whom the
data relate to be identified.’

We unreservedly accept that such personal data should not be
released. However, we just need to know the proportions of home
educated and the proportion of non home educated children for each
heading for which data was collected, we need assurances that this
is comparable data, and an account of how the data were collected.

4) Furthermore:

‘Section 41 (information provided in confidence) is engaged because
this information was imparted in circumstances whereby those
providing it did so in the expectation that it would remain
confidential because of its very nature. The Department therefore
considers that disclosure of it to the public would constitute an
actionable breach of confidence.’

There is no problem here as aggregate data will not reveal data
about individuals. This is not an argument for not releasing the
data at aggregate level.

5) On the public interest test, you said:

‘In addition the following qualified exemption, requiring a public
interest test, is engaged:

Section 38(1)(a) and (b) this section 38 provides that information
is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be
likely, to

(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual; or

(b) endanger the safety of any individual.

This exemption is subject to the public interest test which means
that even where prejudice or likely prejudice can be demonstrated,
it is still necessary to consider whether in all the circumstances
of the case the public interest in withholding the information
outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This exemption covers
events that could reasonably be expected but do not have to be
definitely foreseeable.’

Again aggregate data cannot do that.

6) With respect to the ‘balancing test’ you say:

‘Having carried out the balancing test, the Department takes the
view that it is not in the public interest for the any of the
further information to be released.’

This is not a reasonable stance to adopt. The only quantitative
claim made in the Review that there is a ‘problem’ with respect to
home education and safeguarding concerns is made in paragraph 8.12.
The data underpinning this claim MUST be subject to critical
scrutiny – something that has not yet happened since it is unclear
precisely what data was used, hence our FOI. Failure to scrutinise
this data risks implementation of the Review’s recommendations that
could cause significant harm to home educated children. At the
moment, the evidence unpinning paragraph 8.12 is untested, and the
public interest will not be served until it is.

If it is not the public interest to release this data even at
aggregated level so that the case for change can be seen by all;
then in what sense is it in the public interest for the author of
the Review to be allowed to collect data after the review was
ostensibly completed. Data that relates to a claim he makes in
paragraph 8.12

The public interest test does not appear to be being applied
consistently.

The information Commissioner will no doubt be able to see this
exchange which has taken place after our referral when using the
link we have sent to this conversation.

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

Dear Sir or Madam,

We wish to make some more comments on your letter.

You say,

‘While I appreciate that it is in no way a justification I should
like to explain that the Department makes every effort to meet
deadlines, but the delay in responding in this case has been due to
the unusual volume of requests the Department has received in
recent months. The Information Commissioner has been informed of
the situation.’

The solution is, of course, to redeploy staff so that they can
answer the FOIs. Otherwise the department risks looking as though
it is being obstructive and stonewalling.

You say,

‘I am not clear which media reports quoted Mr Badman in the way
that you suggest above. For information a link to the Department's
press release of 11 June is here:’

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi...

Been there seen it before. Possibly the Department’s own press
office is slipping up – they should have copies of all press
reports mentioning the Department, perhaps the author of this
letter could ask her colleagues, or may be go to:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_an...
and
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educat...

You say,

‘I think it is likely that some confusion has arisen with the
statement at paragraph 8.12 of the report of the review which
indicated that 'the number of children known to children's social
care in some local authorities is disproportionately high relative
to the size of their home educating population'.’

Yes and we feel strongly that this misunderstanding is entirely
intentional and if evidence of that is needed it can be found in
the absence of any clarification by the DCSF even though this
misinformation is damaging actual real children. That Badman is
having a third go at collecting the data to support this claim,
suggests that any confusion is confined to the Review not home
educating parents. It also imples a level of incompetence in
collecting data for the Review that is utterly staggering.

You say.

‘As you will appreciate the Department cannot consider the release
of information which it does not hold, but with regard to your
requests we have taken them to refer to the information
underpinning the reference
in paragraph 8.12 as this is likely to be more helpful to you. As
background, a copy of information that has already been released to
other FOI requesters can be found attached to the Department reply
at
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage....
There is a calculation error in the fourth point of this release.
This has however been released because it is information which the
Department holds and which appears to be within - or most nearly
within - scope of your request, and which does not engage
exemptions under the Act. I understand that the error does not
affect the overall findings at paragraph 8.12 of Mr Badman's
report.’

As Delyth Morgan is now on record in letters to Home Educators
saying that this is not the evidence that the review
recommendations are based on I self evidently don’t accept that
this is the evidence most nearly within the scope of our request.

We and the home educating community are still waiting.

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to make a correction, it was a letter from Dawn
Primalo which claimed that this was not the evidence supporting the
recommendations.

Yours faithfully,

M Stafford

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0079990

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0080057

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0080057

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Stafford

DCSF reference numbers: 2009/0067849; 2009/0074942; 2009/0074943;
2009/0075134; 2009/0077597; 2009/0077887; 2009/0079990; 2009/0080057;
2009/0081535; 2009/0081887; 2009/0090673; and 2009/0090678

Thank you for letting me know that you are content for me to send the
communication to you via Whatdotheyknow.com

My letter is attached.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Partridge
Information Rights Manager, DCSF

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Stafford

DCSF reference numbers: 2009/0067849; 2009/0074942; 2009/0074943;
2009/0075134; 2009/0077597; 2009/0077887; 2009/0079990; 2009/0080057;
2009/0081535; 2009/0081887; 2009/0090673; and 2009/0090678

Thank you for letting me know that you are content for me to send the
communication to you via Whatdotheyknow.com

My letter is attached.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Partridge
Information Rights Manager, DCSF

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Stafford

DCSF reference numbers: 2009/0067849; 2009/0074942; 2009/0074943;
2009/0075134; 2009/0077597; 2009/0077887; 2009/0079990; 2009/0080057;
2009/0081535; 2009/0081887; 2009/0090673; and 2009/0090678

Thank you for letting me know that you are content for me to send the
communication to you via Whatdotheyknow.com

My letter is attached.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Partridge
Information Rights Manager, DCSF

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Stafford

DCSF reference numbers: 2009/0067849; 2009/0074942; 2009/0074943;
2009/0075134; 2009/0077597; 2009/0077887; 2009/0079990; 2009/0080057;
2009/0081535; 2009/0081887; 2009/0090673; and 2009/0090678

Thank you for letting me know that you are content for me to send the
communication to you via Whatdotheyknow.com

My letter is attached.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Partridge
Information Rights Manager, DCSF

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Stafford,
I refer to your several requests for an internal review (case reference
2009/0059859).

Before informing you of the outcome of the internal review I should like
to apologise for the delay in replying. The Department is aware that there
has been a very considerable delay. I much regret this. While I appreciate
that it is in no way a justification I should like to explain that the
Department makes every effort to respond quickly to requests for internal
reviews, but the delay in responding in this case has been due to the
unusual volume of requests the Department has received in recent months.

In your request of 1 July under the Freedom of Information Act (the Act)
you indicated that:

Graham Badman said on behalf of the DCSF and reported in the media
on 11 June 2009: "Children educated at home are twice as likely to
be on social services registers for being at risk of abuse as the
rest of the population."

and your request was as follows:

Please supply under the Freedom of Information Act full details of
the statistical evidence on which Mr Badman bases this assertion.

In particular, please supply copies of all statistical returns from
English local authorities and other agencies to the DCSF which
indicate the educational status (school or electively home
educated) of school aged children on their "at risk" registers.

If, for any reason, Mr Badman's contention was not based on direct
evidence from English local authorities, please supply copies of the
comparative evidence on which he based his statistically based
assertion that "children educated at home are twice as likely to be
on social services registers for being at risk of abuse as the rest
of the population".

If, for any reason, Mr Badman's contention was not based on
statistical evidence from any source, please provide copies of any
anecdotal "evidence" supplied to him by English local authorities
and other agencies which formed the basis for his statistically
based assertion that "children educated at home are twice as likely
to be on social services registers for being at risk of abuse as
the rest of the population".

Finally, please confirm that Mr Badman's contention, and all
evidence used to support his contention, relates only to children
of compulsory education age, since electively home educated
children are by definition all of compulsory education age.

The Department has now completed its internal review process and has
carried out a thorough review of the case, chaired by a senior officer who
was not involved with the original request.

The Department has decided to uphold its original response for the reasons
given in its email of 18 September 2009.

In addition the review noted:

. That the Department had provided information which it held and
believed to be within, or most nearly within, the terms of your request.

. That on 19 September 22.36 you sent comments including a
supplementary question about part of our response. This is answered below.

. That on 19 September 23.38 you sent more comments on our
response.

. That in relation to the issue of aggregate data, which you
suggested would not reveal data about individuals, this was something that
the Department had taken into account in its response of 18 September.
The review panel's consideration of this is explained further below.

Your additional comments were taken into account in the internal review,
and considered carefully.

The review panel felt that in indicating that the Department held other
information within scope of your requests, which was being withheld, it
should have clarified that this was statistical information and not, for
example, anecdotal information. I am sorry that we did not do so.

The outstanding question in your supplementary request of 19 September
22.36 related to a calculation error in the fourth point of an earlier
release, to which we had drawn your attention. I can confirm that the
statement you have identified contains the error, which should have said
1050 rather than 1350.

With regard to the aggregate data and statistical returns, in considering
your original request and supplementary comments the review panel took
account of data protection technical guidance published by the Information
Commissioner's Office: `Determining what is personal data'.

Specifically the reviewer noted the ICO's advice that:

...the fact that there is a very slight hypothetical possibility that
someone might be able to reconstruct the data in such a way that the data
subject is identified is not sufficient to make the individual
identifiable for the purposes of the Directive. The person processing the
data must consider all the factors at stake.

And also:

When considering identifiability it should be assumed that you are not
looking just at the means reasonably likely to be used by the ordinary man
in the street, but also the means that are likely to be used by a
determined person with a particular reason to want to identify
individuals. Examples would include investigative journalists, estranged
partners, stalkers or industrial spies.

In reaching a decision that section 40 had been correctly applied, the
review panel considered all the relevant factors together with other
relevant information, including the ICO's advice above and Recital 26 of
the EC Data Protection Directive (directive 95/46/EC). While imputing no
motives to the requester in this case, were such data to be released under
FOI it would effectively be in the public domain, and the Department would
have no control over who might use it or for what purposes. The review
panel noted that there was more than a slight hypothetical possibility
that someone might be able to reconstruct the data in such a way as to
make data subjects identifiable, especially were this data to be combined
with other data. The review panel concluded that this was a request for
personal data which, if added to other information potentially in the
possession of the requestor or another person, could lead to an individual
being identified, or indeed misidentified.

The review therefore concluded that the decision to withhold that
information should be upheld. The review then took account of this in
considering whether the exemption at section 38 had been applied
correctly, and whether the balance of public interest had been
appropriate. The panel concluded that it had, and upheld the application
of the exemption in section 38.

The review panel also considered the application of the exemption at
section 41 and also upheld that, noting the decisions in relation to
sections 40 and 38, and that the Department in its response of 18
September had clearly indicated that the information was imparted in
circumstances whereby those providing it did so in the expectation that it
would remain confidential because of its very nature.

If you are unhappy with this decision, you have the right to appeal
directly to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can
be contacted at:

The Case Reception Unit

Customer Service Team

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Further information about the Information Commissioner's complaints
procedure can be found on the Information Commissioner's Office website:
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Yours sincerely

Penny Jones

Deputy Director

Independent Schools and School Organisation

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0077597.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...