One of the few laughs that DS and I have been getting out of this review, (and believe me, DS's humour is happily dark as a rule: Me at supper: "I think Susan Boyle sings so well because of all the suffering she's experienced". DS: "Well that should mean you sound fantastic, but you don't"), has been trying to work out the maths that is evidenced in quite a few of the responses to the Home Education Review by the Local Authorities.
Take Lancashire's response by way of but one example:
Q13 Total Number of Home Educated Children (Registered with LA)
Q14 Total (Non-registered with LA)
Q15 Are these figures accurate or based on estimates?
Q19 How confident is the local authority in the accuracy of this data?
Q21 What proportion (as a percentage) of your home educated population is statemented for SEN? (please state whether accurate or estimate)
Q22 What proportion (as a percentage) of your home educated population is non-statemented for SEN (please state whether accurate or estimate)
Q23 What proportion (as a percentage) of your home educated population is from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller heritage (please state whether accurate or estimate)
So how exactly do these figures stack up? I guess it might be me as I am dozy this am and any residual ability to calculate accurately goes out the window when tired, BUT if the total number of HEors are not known about, how can they be sure of their percentages of, for example, SENs? Or do they mean their figure for SENs is only 5% accurate? Or are they only using the numbers of children they do know about? In which case, what sort of child is 5% of 479 children?
In defence of their figures, I guess it would be understandable that such a child would have an SEN.