Decision of the Complaints Committee 01902-15 Afzal v The Sunday Telegraph
Summary of
complaint
1. Feroza Afzal complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Sunday Telegraph had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “New school
‘Islamising’ plot uncovered”/”Another Birmingham school put in special measures
amid ‘Trojan Horse’ fears”, published in print and online on 31 January 2015.
2. The article reported that Ofsted had placed Small
Heath School in Birmingham into special measures amid fears of the resurgence
of the so-called “Trojan horse plot”. It noted that the report, which was not
publicly available at the time the article was published, had found a
“narrowing of the curriculum at the school”, following the appointment of a new
head teacher. The article quoted messages from messaging app WhatsApp, in which
“key plotters” praised the new head teacher, and discussed how she might be
able to pursue an “Islamising agenda” at the school.
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate.
The Ofsted report had not found a “narrowing of the curriculum”; rather it had
praised the breadth of the curriculum at the school, and noted that
“discrimination is not tolerated in any form”. Furthermore, the complainant
said that the Education Select Committee had found no evidence of a “Trojan
horse” plot, or any other extremist influences, at the school.
4. The newspaper accepted that Ofsted had not found a
“narrowing of the curriculum”. This reference had been included in an earlier,
draft version of the report, and the information about this had come from an
authoritative source, close to the school leadership. The assertion had been
contained in quotation marks, to make clear that it was attributable to a
source. The journalist had attempted to contact the local council and the head
teacher prior to publication, but both parties had indicated that they did not
wish to comment on the content of the report. On receipt of the complaint the
newspaper had removed this reference from the online article, and added the
following footnote:
Update: This article has been amended since it was first
posted. As the article stated, the school has been downgraded to “inadequate”
and placed into special measures by Ofsted amid what the inspectorate called a
“schism” between the new head teacher and her staff. However, the published
report did not find a narrowing of the curriculum.
The newspaper also offered to publish the following
correction in its Corrections and Clarifications section on page 2:
An article of 1 Feb (“New school ‘Islamising’ plot
uncovered”) stated that Small Heath School in Birmingham would be downgraded to
“inadequate” and put into special measures by Ofsted, in part due to a finding
of a ‘narrowing of curriculum’ at the school. Although the school was indeed
downgraded as stated, amid what the inspectorate termed a “schism” between the
new head teacher and her staff, the published Ofsted report did not find a
narrowing of the curriculum. We are happy to make this clear.
5. The newspaper defended the wider accuracy of the
article. It was an incontestable fact that the school was one of 21 schools in
Birmingham that was subject to an inspection after the existence of the “plot”
became known. It was not misleading to report on the findings of the report in
this context, particularly in circumstances where the newspaper had access to
messages from some known participants in the “plot”, suggesting that the new
head teacher might pursue an “Islamising agenda” at the school.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence.
Findings of the Committee
7. The Committee expressed some concern that the
newspaper had not made clear that, according to its source, the reference to a
“narrowing of the curriculum” was contained in an early draft version of the
report. However, in circumstances where the article made clear that the final
version of the report had not yet been published, this did not raise a breach
of Clause 1 (i).
8. The Ofsted report had not been publicly available when
the article was published. The newspaper was entitled to rely on a source close
to the school leadership, who had access to a draft version of the report, for
information its findings. The council and school head teacher had declined to
comment on the report’s conclusions. There had been no overall failure to take
care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1 (i).
Nonetheless, the assertion, made twice in the article, that the inspectorate
had found a “narrowing of the curriculum” represented a significant inaccuracy
in the context of an article reporting fears of extremist influences in
schools.
9. In order to avoid a breach of Clause 1 (ii), it was
necessary to correct the reference to a narrowing of the curriculum, which had
not been included in the final version of the report. The newspaper had amended
the online article on receipt of the complaint. The footnote to the article and
stated the true position. The newspaper had also offered to publish a
correction in print. The wording of this was sufficient to avoid a breach of 1
(ii), and page 2 was an appropriate position as the original article had
appeared on page 16. This correction should now be published.
10. It was not in dispute that people involved in the
“Trojan horse” plot had exchanged messages praising the school’s new head
teacher, and suggesting that she might pursue an “Islamising agenda”.
Furthermore, it was accepted that Small Heath School was one of 21 institutions
that had been inspected when the existence of the “plot” had become public
knowledge. The newspaper was entitled to refer to this context when reporting
the findings of the Ofsted report and the article had not contained inaccurate
information in this regard.
Conclusions
11. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 23/03/2015
Date decision issued: 23/06/2015