Title

Robert Hill warns of how easy it is to get bad – often unjustified – publicity. Local authorities have had a fairly rough ride in the national press recently, so this cautionary tale might help explain how bad headlines are all too easy to come by. You may recall reading last month that more students from independent schools got three ‘A's at A-level than from all comprehensives put together – even though private sector students make up only one-in-14 students nationally. A number of newspapers reported that 10,156 pupils from independent schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland gained three As in 2008, compared with just 7,484 from comprehensives and 4,254 from state grammars. There was outrage, and the statistics were seen as an indictment of the state school system. ‘Shameful' was the verdict of one commentator, as the story quickly acquired iconic status. I instinctively felt there was something wrong with the story. I could not recall seeing anything that approximated to these figures during my time as a special adviser in the education department. But, since I had left the world of government behind me and no longer had to worry about checking or rebutting such stories, I let the matter go. But the issue continued to nag at me – particularly as the figures continued to surface in articles and interviews. So, I called the DCSF press office. Was the figure true? Had its staff issued any comment? They said they would get back to me. While I waited, I did a bit of Googling, and within five minutes, I found the figures were almost certainly false. Statistics from 2006 showed a very different picture, with just under two-thirds of students achieving three As coming from state schools and just over one-third from independent schools. Then, two hours later, the DCSF sent through the official statistics. They confirmed the 2006 position. Last summer, 65.8% (20,508) of 16 to 18-year-old candidates in England gaining three As came from maintained schools, with only 34.2% (10,680 pupils) coming from independent schools. Even when we take out the figures for grammar schools, almost 50% more students gained three As in non-selective institutions than in independent schools. How could newspapers publish figures that were so wrong? Because they omitted to include any students who gained their A-levels studying in sixth form colleges or sixth form centres linked to FE colleges. Given that in some local authorities – including large ones such as Hampshire – almost all state school pupils pursue A-levels in sixth form colleges, the original story was, to put it politely, a major distortion. It may help if I explain that the original figures were issued by a political party – in this case the Conservative Party. But my real target is not the Tories – after all, the Labour Party and Government have hardly been squeaky clean – but the national media. How was it that the media took the figures at face value? Did none of them stop to question the statistics? Journalists from professional journals such as The MJ know their subject and are not easily hoodwinked. But reporters from national media outlets – even so-called specialist correspondents – tend to hunt in packs. Following a press conference, they can be seen in a huddle agreeing lines to take – lest any of them are accused by their news editors of missing a key point. We get too many sensational headlines because of sloppy journalism. Nor are the A-level figures the only recent example. Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is regularly reported as being behind schedule. True, the programme did get off to a slow start, but for the last two years, it has been hitting or exceeding its delivery and construction targets. Similarly, before Christmas, the national media were quick to report that banks were refusing to lend to BSF schemes. But they have been far less keen to publicise the changed situation – 15 banks are now willing to support PFI-based BSF schemes; four BSF deals have been ‘closed' since the start of 2009; and a major pension fund is considering entering the BSF market for the first time. So, what's to be done? Here's one idea. Require newspapers to give the same prominence to corrections as they gave to an original incorrect story – instead of tucking them away in a ‘news in brief' column, as they all too often do. Occasionally, the BBC or one of the commercial channels has had to broadcast an apology during prime time TV, so why shouldn't the same principle apply to our national newspapers? It would make for better journalism and better public debate. Robert Hill works as an independent policy analyst

Title

WHITEHALL

'A' cautionary tale

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING