Posted by sim-o
January 6th, 2011
Back in September FullFact.org looked into the claims of the press of how many children had been mis-diagnosed as having special educational needs (SEN). This was because throughout the press there was several different claims all arising from the same OfSted report.
The three most inaccurate claims were in the Independent, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail (this is an Istyosty link).
Full Fact came to the conclusion that about 457,000 children had been mis-diagnosed, not to belittle that number but it is significantly different to the 700,000 – 750,000 that these three papers claimed.
Mistakes happen. These reports are not usually the easiest things to read and interpret (for me at least). Given that an error in reporting of this size could influence any future debate about the subject (there has been some recent debates where SEN was raised), and being good public spirited citizens, Full Fact contacted the gang of three and explained where they had gone wrong with their figures.
I should mention that Full Fact, once they had done their adding and subtracting, went to Ofsted for clarification and to make sure they had infact got it right. Full Fact were correct in their workings and the figure of up to 750,000 children being mis-diagnosed with SEN is wrong, although Ofsted would only agree privately and not publicly. Ofsted only said anything publicly after a Parliamentary Question (.pdf) was asked.
By the time November had come round Full Fact had given…
…almost two months of concerted, polite effort on the part of Full Fact to remove inaccurate figures from the debate the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent still refuse to correct their stories. Indeed, the Independent and the Mail both repeated the claim. They say they will not correct except at the request of Ofsted themselves.
This is a clear breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice, which demands that “a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence…”
So, with the Mail, Independent and the Telegraph sticking to their mis-informed guns dispite clear accurate proof that their figures were seriously inflating an already serious number of SEN mis-diagnoses, off Full Fact went to the PCC.
Fast forward a month to December and Full Fact have another update. After initially refusing to get off it’s arse, due to those being directly involved, Ofsted, not making the complaint, the PCC accepted the complaint from Full Fact and the online articles have now been corrected and a note explaining why. Two out of the three articles have been corrected, at least.
The Independent and The Telegraph have both updated their articles but sadly the Daily Mail, being a true rebel, hasn’t.
The Daily Mail, in the face of the correct figures, Ofsted claiming publicly, albeit forced to, that the figures the mail has used in it’s story are incorrect and the PCC telling it it is wrong and should issue a correction, is still sticking with the wrong numbers. Full Fact explain why…
However the Mail’s response to the PCC argued that based on the information in the report and the press briefing, the figure was valid – and made only more so by the use of qualifiers such as “up to”.
We feel that even if the use of the higher figure was reasonable based on the briefing, this is no grounds not to correct the story in light of the later clarification.
Exactly. Fine, the Mail came to the wrong conclusion like others did, but why, when new information comes to light, shouldn’t it update/correct itself? Answers on a postcard please, to Northcliffe House, London.
Categories: education |
Tags: corrections, education, incorrect, special needs | 3 Comments
Posted by carlp
September 6th, 2010
On July 22nd I wrote a small blog entry on my website about a dodgy article in the Daily Mail about children with special educational needs.
In my entry I asked: “[a]t what point do we suppose the Daily Mail not only dislikes the inclusion of young people with special educational needs in schools, but doesn’t think special educational needs exist outside of the 2% once designated before the Warnock report of 1978.”
Of course the article in the Mail doesn’t explicitly say there is no such things as Special Needs because in doing this, not only would they be wrong (this shouldn’t phase them too much), they’d open up the grounds for a whole campaign and would alienate a large amount of people (even if those people are Mail readers).
The Mail article stated that “it has also been claimed” that doctors, teachers and parents are too keen to pin medical labels – such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – on “what might previously have been branded poor discipline”.
It then quoted Dr Gwynedd Lloyd, an education researcher at the University of Edinburgh, who said:
You can’t do a blood test to check whether you’ve got ADHD – it’s diagnosed through a behavioural checklist. Getting out of your seat and running about is an example – half the kids in a school could qualify under that criterion.
My charge is obviously against the unsourced article where the Mail, instead of making a claim themselves, have claimed that “doctors, teachers and parents” attest to children being overbranded.
Then last week a comment appeared below my entry by Dr Lloyd herself telling me that:
The daily mail used a quote from me, without my permission, from another article that took a different approach. My argument is not that ADHD doesn’t exist, it is that we are clustering together lots of difficult and challenging behaviour under one rather simple diagnosis and then using stimulant medication. Of course such children need additional support in school and should get it. The daily mail used my quote out of context to support their argument against inclusion. I disagree completely with their conclusions!
Of course! The Mail don’t make claims themselves, they use claims by other people in order to hide what they really think, but even better than that, they use quotes from people who don’t even agree with the charge they are hiding behind.
I contacted Dr Lloyd through her work email to verify whether it was really her who had left the comment. After confirming this she told me that she was:
really fed up with the Daily Mail using this bit of a quote. The original was in the Guardian and has since appeared without context (and to support opinions I dislike) twice in the Mail and one in the Telegraph. – so not just the tabloids!
So let it be known, the Mail (and the Telegraph) will use quotes out of turn, without permission, to write ill-thought commentary on subjects they find contentious. Why people continue using this rag for information is well beyond me.
Categories: Politics |
Tags: deceit, education, special needs | 2 Comments
Posted by sim-o
August 6th, 2009
The government has announced a controversial initiative yesterday. Controversial for the Mail anyway. That initiative is to reduce violence against women and young girls.
The initiative is called Saving Lives, Reducing Harm, Protecting the Public, and…
The most eye-catching proposal in the document is the one to force schools to introduce statutory lessons in ‘educating children and young people about healthy, nonviolent relationships’
This stuff is going to be taught to five year olds. But just like sex education being taught to youngsters this will be tailored to the appropriate age too. Five year olds won’t be taught the same stuff or in the same way as 14 year olds. That really would be daft.
The Mail doesn’t like it and tries to drag Harriet Harman in and imply a ‘feminist agenda’. Harman is involved but only because she happens to be borrowing the top job while the boss is away. Why the Mail had to raise a non-related point about her becoming embroiled in a row over rape laws is anybodies guess. Even if Harriet has had some input into it, so what? What’s wrong with trying to reduce the amount of women and girls being beaten shitless?
The Mail does admit that it is a cross government initiative, which contradicts the mystrious critics named only as ‘Others’ who say it is part of Harmans’ ‘feminist agenda’. But how can that be? This report contains more than just this part about wife-beating/domestic violence. Another thing that undermines the ‘feminist agenda’ is…
unless there are plans to segregate the classroom into ‘bad boys’ and ‘good girls’ whilst these lessons are taking place, then it’s obviously not just boys who are being taught about domestic violence, it’s all the kids.
Here, though is a critic that James Slack, the reporter, can name…
Margaret Morrissey, of family lobby group ParentsOutloud, said that PSHE classes were in danger of being ‘hijacked by pressure groups’.
She added: ‘I do not really want my youngster to be indoctrinated with these things.
‘There will always be those who want to cram our school curriculum with social issues that need to be taught by parents and society.’
At this point, I would like to quote from Enemies of Reason…
Do you like the irony? A pressure group is saying that classes were being hijacked by pressure groups? But surely this article has been ‘hijacked’ by a pressure group, then? Or is it only the wrong kind of pressure group that this pressure group objects to? So, sure, a ‘critic’ has said that the curriculum (not ‘already overstuffed’, mind) is being crammed with things, but just things they disapprove of. And who are ParentsOutLoud anyway? Well have a look at the website and see what you think. Now don’t be cruel about the fact that an education pressure group can’t spell or write things properly; that’s just nasty of you. We all make mistakes and doubtless there’ll be one from me just centimetres away from this. No, look instead at the kind of articles they have – roaring about ‘health and safety’, complaining about Government targets, attacking Ed Balls – it’s a bit like if the Daily Mail ran a pressure group, what that pressure group would be. So naturally their interests dovetail nicely with the Mail’s when a ‘critic’ needs to be found of any Government plan involving kids.
Around the middle of the article is where the Mail starts pushing against the feminist agenda even more, muddying the waters and discretely moves the goal posts…
The Government claims that violence against women is costing Britain an astonishing £40billion.
It has emerged they are carrying out five separate reviews into the causes and how women can be better protected.
This is despite evidence showing that boys and young men are more than twice as likely to fall victim to violence, and that young women are becoming increasingly aggressive.
There it is, boys are twice as likely to be victims of violence and girls are getting more violent too. That is the correct. I do not know the figures, but it is. The Mail is trying to destroy the feminist arguement by shouting that boys are a bigger victim than girls and Harriet is just looking after the girls. But just like any comparison, it needs to be like for like and this is not it. Boys and men are victims of domestic violence too, but not in the same numbers as women. It would be good if boys as victims were included in this report too, they may well be, but to try and beat Harman with the feminist stick by making incompatible comparisons between these two levels of victims is wrong.
A quarter of all violent assaults in England and Wales are carried out by women, and it is the most common reason for females to be arrested, recently overtaking theft and handling stolen goods.
So three quarters of all violent assaults are carried out by men.
Another quote that fits the Mails strange logic…
Jill Kirby, of the Centre for Policy Studies, said Miss Harman and the Government should not be creating the impression violent crime is men against women, when the statistics show this is not the case.
She added: ‘It is young men who are most likely to be the victims of violent crime. It is a distortion to suggest otherwise. It appears that everything must be viewed through the prism of 1960s feminism.’
It may be most likely to be a young man that will be a victim of violent crime, but it is also men that are most likely to be the person being violent. Whether against other men or women, women are still the fairer sex.
The Daily Mail on the other hand by miscomparing and it’s choice of people and organisations it quotes is giving the impression that the violence is the other way round, women against men.
*No, I’m not going to finish the joke as it is only funny to a five year old. Unless of course their mother really does have two black eyes.
Categories: Politics |
Tags: education, feminism, violence | 18 Comments
