Firstly, please stop with this "stupid question" crap - it's a question, and as fair (or not!) as anybody else's.
In the climb or landing configuration, with no thrust, the glide performance will be poorer than in the cruise configuration (flaps and gear up in other words). However, also it is transient (as speeds, flap setting, and gear setting) change, so will glide ratio. Further, what are you going to do with the number? Planning any kind of glide is really not feasible at low level after an engine failure: it has to be responsive.
In the real world, after an engine failure on climb out or approach, the only think that you can sensibly do is judge your glide with the "constant aspect" method. If a point is going up in your point of view, you aren't going to make it - putting the nose down or flaps up *might* improve things a bit, or they might not. If the point is going down in your field of view, you're going to fly over it - but if it's a good place to land, then you can use flaps, sideslip, or S-turns (in that order) to lose height.
If a point is staying still in your field of view, then that's where you're going!
It is possible to calculate, or more reliably measure, the glide performance and best glide speed at different flap settings. But really, what's the point? What are you meaningfully going to do with that number? If the engine stops, you're quite busy enough and aren't going to be doing mental arithmetic with semi-useless numbers about glide performance.
Also if you are close to the ground, then the only real speed to be flying is your approach speed because you need to be set up for the best possible landing. Use of a best glide speed is seldom wise, bar increasing speed a little to stretch a glide and clear a hedge.
G