Decision of the Complaints Committee – 06272-19 Shadforth
v The Sunday Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Chris Shadforth, acting on behalf of the Office of
Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual), complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause1
(Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice in an article headlined
"Revealed – A-level results are 48% wrong" published on 11 August
2019.
2. The article reported that "two out of five teenagers
who sat essay-based A-levels may be awarded the 'wrong' grade when results come
out on Thursday because of inconsistent marking, according to research from the
exam regulator Ofqual". It went on to report that the study found that
"the probability of a candidate not getting the correct grade in subjects
such as English and history is between 42% and 48% because examiners mark
subjectively. For sociology it is 37% and for geography 35%." The article
featured a quote from a Professor at a Centre for Education Research at a named
university who said that “Millions have been spent on this new A-level exam
system and even now there is a crisis of confidence. The marking in essay-based
subjects has been proved wrong on too many occasions and the grade boundaries
have been lowered to a dangerous level". The article then featured a quote
from Ofqual, which said "It is recognised that the quality of marking in
England is among the best in the world. However, we are not complacent".
3. The article was also published in much the same format
online under the headline "Revealed – A-level results are 48% wrong",
published on 11 August 2019.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate. He
said that the article had misrepresented Ofqual's report to claim that between
42% and 48% of grades were "wrong". The complainant said that the
research, which focused on marking consistency, did not feature the term
"wrong" and made no reference to grades being incorrect or wrong. He
said that the study reported on marking consistency and emphasised that unlike
subjects such as maths, there is not a single right mark for every answer in
essay based subjects, and for many assessments experienced examiners may
interpret mark schemes to return two different but equally legitimate marks or
grades that give a sound reflection of a student's performance. The complainant
highlighted that marking consistency is a relative concept and not an absolute
concept of right and wrong grades, to use the term wrong in relation to the
report was inaccurate. In any event, the complainant said that Ofqual had
released material on how many grades were wrongly awarded and that only 1.1% of
grades were changed in 2018, in English the figure ranged from 1.2% to 1.8%. He
said that he had explained why the article's interpretation of the research was
wrong prior to publication, yet this information was not included in the
article.
5. The complainant also said that the article had given the
misleading impression that Ofqual itself had found that 48% of grades were
"wrong", when for the aforementioned reasons, this was not what the
study found. The complainant acknowledged that the professor quoted in the
article had used the term "wrong" but emphasised that he was not
commenting on Ofqual's research specifically. In any event, the term did not
appear in quotation marks in the headline and readers would have therefore have
understood that Ofqual itself said that 48% of grades were wrong.
6. Where the report was published nine months prior to the
article's publication, the complainant criticised the decision to publish the
article the same week A-level results were released. He said this was done
intentionally to cause distress to those affected by exam pressures.
7. The publication denied that it was inaccurate to report
that 48% of grades were "wrong". It said that the study had found
that 52% of grades in English language and literature were
"definitive", defined in the study as the grade a senior examiner
would return; this contrasted with mathematics where the probability of a grade
being definitive was 96%. The publication said that it was disingenuous to
claim that an unambiguous grade could be awarded to students, only for Ofqual
to find that nearly half of the awarded grades were not "definitive"
i.e. not the mark awarded by a senior examiner. Where one student could be
awarded a B, when a different marker could award a C, the use of the term
"wrong" was not inaccurate. The publication noted that if an
examiner's marking does not conform to the "definitive grade"
established by a senior marker, disciplinary action would be brought against
that marker. The publication questioned why if both grades were legitimate, as
claimed by the complainant, how Ofqual could account for these actions.
8. The publication also said that the complainant's position
that Ofqual had already published data on the amount of wrong grades awarded
was flawed. It said that Ofqual only recorded grades which had been challenged
and subsequently changed, roughly 5.6%. It said that Ofqual was happy to refer
to grades being wrongly awarded when they were changed but objected to the
newspaper using this terminology. The publication highlighted that in both
instances, both parties are referring to cases where the grade awarded by the
marker differed to that given by the senior marker. It noted that it was not
credible to argue that inconsistent marking cannot be described as wrong, while
simultaneously accepting the marking could be wrong when that inconsistency is
challenged and corrected. The publication emphasised that it was entitled to
use the language it saw fit to characterise the findings and was not bound to
terminology approved by public bodies; the term "wrong" was a fair
summation of the research as a whole. Nevertheless, the term "wrong"
had also featured in the professor's quote, in which he had made the point that
the marking in essay based questions had been "proved wrong on too many
occasions".
9. Notwithstanding its position that there was no breach of
the Code, the publication offered to publish a letter from Ofqual setting out
its position. The publication also
offered to publish a clarification in its print and online Corrections and
Clarifications column 56 days after IPSO began its investigation. The
publication offered the following wording:
"Our report 'Revealed - A-level results are 48% wrong'
(News, August 11) stated that two out of five teenagers who sat essay-based
subjects at A-level may be awarded the 'wrong' grade. Ofqual argues the word
'wrong' misrepresents the results of their research; that variation in grades
is due to the intrinsic subjectivity of marking humanities subjects; and that
the true proportion of grades awarded in error is 1.2 %. We are happy to make
this clear."
10. The complainant rejected this offer and said that the
1.2% figure was not supplied for this reason and its inclusion in the context
of this wording did not correct the inaccuracy.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
12. The research published by Ofqual, which was referenced
in the article, found that 52% of grades awarded by examiners in English were
definitive, defined in Ofqual’s report as being the same grade as would have
been awarded by a senior examiner. It was not significantly misleading to
report that 48% of grades could be "wrong", in circumstances where
the research indicated that, in 48% of cases, a senior examiner could have
awarded a different grade to that awarded by the examiner who had marked the
paper. The complainant had accepted that different grades could be awarded as a
result of inconsistencies in marking, but disagreed with the characterisation
of the research which had been adopted by the publication. However, the Committee found that, in light
of the findings about the inconsistencies in marking which had been identified
in the research, it was not significantly inaccurate for the publication to
characterise the findings of the research in this way. However, whilst the
article had presented the term "wrong" in quotation marks, it did not
make it sufficiently clear that this was the newspaper's own characterisation
of the research, rather than a finding which had been made by Ofqual. The
Professor quoted in the article had used the term "wrong" to refer to
the marking of essay based subjects, but the quotation had not referred to
Ofqual’s research. Prior to publication, the complainant had explained Ofqual's
position that it did not accept that the research had found that the reported
percentage of grades were "wrong", which provided the publication
with an opportunity to ensure that Ofqual's position was not misrepresented;
however, the quote provided by Ofqual had not been included in the
article. The article had not made clear
that grades being “wrong” was the publication’s characterisation and not a
finding made by Ofqual; this amounted to a failure to take care not to publish
inaccurate or misleading information in breach of Clause 1(i) and was
significant so as to require a correction to avoid a further breach of Clause
1(ii).
13. The publication offered to publish a clarification and
the proposed wording made clear that the term “wrong” was the publication's own
characterisation or summation of the research, rather than a finding made by
Ofqual. The Committee considered that the publication's offer to publish the
wording in the online and print Corrections and Clarifications columns
represented a suitably prominent position in which to correct the inaccuracy.
However, the clarification was offered 56 days after IPSO began its investigation.
Given that the publication had been informed of Ofqual’s position prior to
publication, the offer could not be considered prompt; the delay gave rise to a
breach of Clause 1(ii).
14. The timing of an article's publication is a matter of
editorial discretion and not a Code issue. There was no breach of Clause 1 on
this point.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i) and Clause
1(ii).
Remedial Action Required
16. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee
establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a
correction and/or an adjudication, the nature, extent and placement of which is
determined by IPSO.
17. In circumstances where the Committee found that the
publication was entitled to characterise the findings of the report in the way
reported, but that the article had not made clear that this was its own
characterisation rather than a finding made by Ofqual, the Committee considered
that the appropriate remedy was the publication of a correction.
18. The proposed wording, although not offered promptly,
addressed the inaccuracy and publication in the Corrections and Clarifications
columns satisfied the requirement for sufficient prominence. The correction
should, therefore, now be published, with the addition that it has been
published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards
Organisation.
Date complaint received: 22/08/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/02/2020
Back to ruling listing