tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37623200.post8950509269309654738..comments2008-09-29T18:58:03.118+01:00Gillnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37623200.post-39869468282094878532008-09-29T18:58:00.000+01:002008-09-29T18:58:00.000+01:00

Oh yes, it actually says "(inserted before section 437 in Chapter 2, Part 6 of the Education Act 1996 (school attendance) by the Education and Inspections Act 2006)" doesn't it? <BR/><BR/>Gah, do I have to read it <I>properly</I> as well? ;-)

Gillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09707661738889563273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37623200.post-52040107062517714302008-09-29T17:20:00.000+01:002008-09-29T17:20:00.000+01:00

Oh right, thanks Dani. Yep, clear as mud indeed! Especially the way the references are set out in the draft guidance - it's very hard to work out which sources they mean. <BR/><BR/>I'm planning to plough through the rest of the document (again) and blog the rest of my probably grumpy thoughts about it, then read what you and Carlotta and others have said and blogging some more before putting my

Gillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09707661738889563273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37623200.post-74264680108774275572008-09-29T14:26:00.000+01:002008-09-29T14:26:00.000+01:00

It's Section 436A of the 1996 Education Act, which was amended by the Education and Inspections Act 2006.<BR/><BR/>Clear as mud, huh?<BR/><BR/>The draft guidance is extremely badly drafted, imo, but I think your interpretation of it is highly likely to be the one LAs will go for.

Danihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02948665818523238498noreply@blogger.com