Such eloquence, Patriot! Unfortunately completely divorced from reality, but eloquent nevertheless ;-)

   Were you born a dishonest number manipulator or did you just naturally develop. Truants are truants. Statisticians never recognize the truth.One causing mayhem is more than enough, but a difference of 50 - Gee. Just take the mean average between the two figures and you have 215 truants, and, doing what exactly.

Your dishonesty is staggering.

   The statistics are simply based on "unauthorised absences", and while some of these children *might* be hell-bent on "inflicting mayhem" on society, there are any number of reasons for their absence, and any number of activities that they might be engaging in, besides "mayhem" that they might "inflict on any society".

Besides, per the actual numbers provided by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the difference between the Macclesfield and expected Cheshire-based numbers is closer to 25 children - less than an additional 1 child per every two schools in the Borough.

Next we'll be hearing that "they" should bring back the birch...

   You being 50 out on your figures is a huge problem. Just think of the mayhem that 50 absent kids can inflict on any society.

   My population numbers are pretty accurate, Gordon. Feel free to present your source for other data.

You are inadvertently correct, however on one point; there *are* inaccuracy in some of the numbers used; unfortunately, they're in the numbers used in the original article. It turns out that the number for Cheshire is in fact 0.86%, not 0.76%, and the number for Macclesfield, when based on school location, is 0.96%. This makes the difference between Macc and Cheshire negligible, and still puts Macc significantly below the national average.

Check for yourself at the DFES Web site - the truancy data is all there.

   The article in question quoted the latest figures. A commenter here takes some of his own and works some figures out for himself. His comments talk using the words "Approximately" and "About" which are grossly inaccurate.

On my last visit, not in school holidays I was amazed at the number of school aged kids aimlessly roaming the streets.

I believe that the comments about the old Truancy Officers was more than relevant. We do not have that problem as the schools would be informed immediately and parents would be summoned to the school, and are held responsible.

    BRING BACK TRUANCY OFFICERS - ATTACHED TO RESPECTIVE SCHOOLS... AND THE CANE!!..... AND AS AUSTRALIA IS NOW CONSIDERING/DOING - MAKE PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR. FRANK SEN BRIT/OLD STOCONIAN/MACCITE.. AUSTRALIA

   What do these numbers mean in reality?

Per Cheshire County Council's Web site, the Borough of Macclesfield has approximately 150,000 residents, and the number of 5-18 year olds in the Borough is about 25,000.

The truancy rate in the Macclesfield area therefore works out to be 0.96% of 25,000 = 240 children.

Based on the Cheshire average, the "expected" rate would be 0.76% of 25,000 = 190 children.

The difference then, is approximately 50 children. when averaged over the schools in the borough, this works out to be less than 1 extra child missing per school in the district, compared to the county norm...

...and is still LESS than the national average.