Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 4 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Response to the additional data request made by Graham Badman
To Brighton and Hove City Council by Dani Ahrens 28 August 2009
Graham Badman annex and Local authorities used in EHE review
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by Tania Berlow 16 July 2009
Local Authority Evidence
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by Stephen Mckie 25 June 2009
Questions in the In Depth Survey to 25 Local Authorities in the Badman Review of Elective Home Education
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by M Stafford 30 July 2009
Badman review of home education: annex
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by Shena Deuchars 10 July 2009
Who responded to the Review into EHE
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by S Tyler 6 August 2009
the 25 local authorities in the Badman Review
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by Tania Berlow 28 July 2009
Home Education Review: statistics for home educated children known to social care.
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by Mrs J Wilkins 26 July 2009
Quality assurance of evidence for CSF select committee
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by Dr David Shone 22 October 2009
Information about research methodology of Badman Review of Home Education
Dani Ahrens made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Children, Schools and Families
The request was successful.
From: Dani Ahrens
24 July 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
In part 5 of an Annex to Graham Badman's Review of Elective Home
Education, released by you in response to Freedom of Information
requests by A. White and others (for example at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...),
it is stated that
"25 of the 90 LAs asked responded."
Please could you let me know the following information about the
way these responses were gathered:
1. Are the 90 LAs referred to in the Annex the same 90 LAs which
responded to the questionnaire published as Annex D of the Review
report?
2. Were these LAs subsequently approached with further questions?
3. What was the wording of the question or questions to which 25
LAs responded, giving figures for electively home educated children
"known to social care"?
4. If the 90 LAs were asked any other questions, after responding
to the original questionnaire, what was the wording of these
questions?
Yours faithfully,
Dani Ahrens
Department for Children, Schools and Families
27 July 2009
Dear Dani
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
2009/0067211.
Thank you.
Central Allocation Team
Public Communications Team
Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk
show quoted sections
Department for Children, Schools and Families
21 August 2009
Dear Ms Ahrens,
Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 25 July.
You requested -
In part 5 of an Annex to Graham Badman's Review of Elective Home
Education, released by you in response to Freedom of Information
requests by A. White and others (for example at
[1]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...),
it is stated that
"25 of the 90 LAs asked responded."
Please could you let me know the following information about the
way these responses were gathered:
1. Are the 90 LAs referred to in the Annex the same 90 LAs which
responded to the questionnaire published as Annex D of the Review
report?
2. Were these LAs subsequently approached with further questions?
3. What was the wording of the question or questions to which 25
LAs responded, giving figures for electively home educated children
"known to social care"?
4. If the 90 LAs were asked any other questions, after responding
to the original questionnaire, what was the wording of these
questions?
I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
All top tier local authorities (150) were sent the local authority
questionnaire (Annex D of Graham Badman's report). 90 responses were
received. A second questionnaire was sent to the 90 local authorities who
responded to the first questionnaire, 25 of whom responded. A copy of the
second questionnaire sent to the 90 local authorities is attached, which
provides the answers to the questions you have asked.
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: [2][email address]
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 Partnerships and Strategy Team
[email address]
[3]www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0067211.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
2. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/
From: Dani Ahrens
21 August 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for sending me the Additional data request, sent to the
90 local authorities who responded to Graham Badman's initial
questionnaire.
I would now like the following further information about this
process:
1. The names of the 90 local authorities who were sent this
additional data request
2. The names of the 25 local authorities who responded to it
3. How many of these 25 were able to give numerical answers to each
of questions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6?
4. How many of these 25 gave case studies involving specific
safeguarding concerns, and how many case studies were provided in
total?
Yours faithfully,
Dani Ahrens
Department for Children, Schools and Families
24 August 2009
Dear Ms Ahrens,
Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible (where a response is required). For information, the
departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses
should be sent within 15 working days or 20 working days if you are
requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0073681
Thank you.
Central Allocation Team
Public Communications Team
Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk
show quoted sections
Shena Deuchars left an annotation (24 August 2009)
I have been sent the same info and have issued a new FoI request (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...) asking for all 90 and 25 responses. I understand what Tania is saying but this is not covered by confidentiality. Individual cases would only be identifiable in an LA if there were very few... And if that is the case, it makes our point.
Dani Ahrens left an annotation (24 August 2009)
That's great, Shena. I thought you had already asked for the full data and been turned down on grounds of Section 37, so I didn't ask for it in my follow up request. Crazy that we are having to do all this digging to get info they should have published in the first place!
Department for Children, Schools and Families
13 November 2009
Dear Ms
Ahrens, Your
Ref:2009/0073681
Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 24 August 2009.
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 requested the following -
1. The names of the 90 local authorities who were sent this additional data request.
2. The names of the 25 local authorities who responded to it.
3. How many of these 25 were able to give numerical answers to each of questions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6?
4. How many of these 25 gave case studies involving specific safeguarding concerns, and how many case studies
were provided in total?
I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act").
Under section 21 of the Act, the Department is not required to provide information in response to a request if
it is already reasonably accessible to you. You may be aware that we have placed some information, previously
disclosed to correspondents about the home education review, onto the disclosure log on the Freedom of
Information link on the front page of the Department's internet site ([1]http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/ ).
The list of 90 and 25 local authorities is available on the disclosure log at
[2]http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage...
and
[3]http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage...
The below table provides information in response to question 3:
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Question |Number of LAs |
|--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------|
|1 |22 |
|--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------|
|2 |22 |
|--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------|
|3 |22 |
|--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------|
|4 |20 |
|--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------|
|5 |20 |
|--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------|
|6 |8 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Sixty Two case studies were sent by local authorities.
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: [4][email address]
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,
Lisa White
[5]www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0073681.
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/foischeme/
2. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage...
3. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/subPage...
4. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
5. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/
From: Dani Ahrens
13 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your response to my request for information about
Graham Badman's review of home education (reference number
2009/0073681).
I am puzzled by the information it contains. Could you please
explain the following discrepancies:
1. The response I received from you today indicates that 22 of the
25 local authorities who responded were able to give numerical
answers to question 1 of Graham Badman's additional data request.
I have seen the responses of 16 authorities, and of these 16, 7 did
not give an overall figure for EHE children currently known to
social care in their authority. These 7 were Blackpool, East
Sussex, Hampshire, Lancashire, Norfolk, Tameside, and Redbridge. I
do not therefore understand how you have arrived at the figure of
22 in total.
2. The response I received from you today indicates that 22 of the
25 local authorities who responded were able to give numerical
answers to question 3 of Graham Badman's additional data request.
Since question 3 was not asking for a numerical answer, but for
anonymised case studies, this is even more puzzling. I did ask how
many local authorities had provided case studies. Are you saying
that 22 local authorities provided case studies in response to
question 3? If not, please could you answer my original question?
Yours faithfully,
Dani Ahrens
Department for Children, Schools and Families
13 November 2009
Dear Dani
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 2009/0096474
Thank you.
Central Allocation Team
Public Communications Team
Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk
show quoted sections
Department for Children, Schools and Families
23 November 2009
Dear Ms
Ahrens,
Your Ref: 2009/0096474
Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 13 November 2009.
You requested the following -
Could you please explain the following discrepancies:
1. The response I received from you today indicates that 22 of the
25 local authorities who responded were able to give numerical
answers to question 1 of Graham Badman's additional data request.
I have seen the responses of 16 authorities, and of these 16, 7 did
not give an overall figure for EHE children currently known to
social care in their authority. These 7 were Blackpool, East
Sussex, Hampshire, Lancashire, Norfolk, Tameside, and Redbridge. I
do not therefore understand how you have arrived at the figure of
22 in total.
2. The response I received from you today indicates that 22 of the
25 local authorities who responded were able to give numerical
answers to question 3 of Graham Badman's additional data request.
Since question 3 was not asking for a numerical answer, but for
anonymised case studies, this is even more puzzling. I did ask how
many local authorities had provided case studies. Are you saying
that 22 local authorities provided case studies in response to
question 3? If not, please could you answer my original question?
I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act").
Question 1 of the additional data questionnaire asked local authorities what proportion of their current EHE
caseload is known to social care. Twenty two local authorities provided a numerical answer. This number does
not include Lancashire, Norfolk and Tameside. The remaining Local Authorities did provide the Department with
an overall numerical answer including East Sussex, Hampshire and Redbridge. The numerical answer included both
open and closed cases.
Question 3 asked local authorities to provide anonymised case studies describing specific safeguarding
concerns. 22 local authorities provided 62 case studies.
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: [1][email address]
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,
Lisa White
[2]www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0096474.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Tania Berlow left an annotation (22 August 2009)
I am willing to bet having seen the abuse stats and having seen what is done of the 'suitable education stats' that the vast majority of numbers come from educational concerns-the ultra vires LA requests of parents for visits even although there are no concerns following initial written contact or individual LA's interpretations of 'suitable' that would not stand up in court.
Link to this