Resolution Statement – 00008-25 Board of Governors of John Rankin Schools and Flora Cooper v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. The Board of Governors of John Rankin Schools and Flora Cooper complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Head who tried to block Ofsted has her school reviewed - and it's 'inadequate'”, published on 23 December 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page nine - reported on an Ofsted inspection that had taken place at John Rankin School. The article reported that Ms Cooper – the school’s Headteacher “tried to block Ofsted inspectors has finally had her school reviewed – and it was found to be failing pupils”. It went on to report that the headteacher had “angered parents last March when she urged supporters to blockade John Rankin Junior School in protest over the death of fellow head Ruth Perry”. In relation to the results of the Ofsted inspection itself, the article reported that it was found that the school was rated “inadequate based on the quality of its education and its leadership and management”. In addition to this, the article reported that the “school was approached for comment”.

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline “Headteacher who tried to block Ofsted inspectors is found to be failing pupils after finally having school reviewed”. This version was published on 22 December 2024.

4. The complainants said the article was inaccurate to report that the “school had been approached for comment” as they had not been contacted prior to publication of the article.

5. The complainants also said that the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to report that Ms Cooper had "finally ha[d] her school reviewed" by Ofsted and that the outcome of this was that “Ofsted ha[d] rated Ms Cooper’s school […] as inadequate based on the quality of its education and its leadership and management”. The complainants said these claims were inaccurate as they conflated two separate Ofsted inspections - an inspection of the infant and nursery school in March 2023 and an inspection of the junior school in October/November 2024. The complainants noted that the inspection of March 2023 had been delayed by one day only and that the inspection that took place in October/November 2024 went ahead on schedule - and Ofsted had rated the infant and nursery school as "good". The complainants expressed concern that the article gave a misleading impression that Ms Cooper had something to hide in the year 2023 by delaying the Ofsted inspection, that this remained the case until the year 2024, and that the truth had “finally” emerged after the second Ofsted inspection.

6. During direct correspondence, and in relation to the claim that the “school had been approached for comment”, the publication said its reporter contacted the school on 22 December 2024 and provided a copy of the email that was sent:

“Hello there,

I’m a reporter for the Daily Mail newspaper.

I am getting in touch as we plan to publish a story in tomorrow’s paper about the recently published Ofsted inspection report into John Rankin Junior School.

We will report:

-The inspection’s key findings, including that the school was rated as inadequate on the quality of its education and its leadership and management It was rated good on the areas of behaviour and attitudes and personal development

-The inspector’s comments on the unacceptable standard of education, the high staff turnover and the failure of the governing body to provide ‘effective oversight or challenge to mitigate the impact of staff turbulence on pupils’ quality of education’

-A separate recent Change.org petition started by a group of unnamed parents who say they have lost confidence in headteacher Flora Cooper (who last year tried to stop Ofsted inspectors visiting) and the chair of the governors, calling for them to be

removed from their posts The petition claims parents are carers are not listened to and that their children have been ‘let down badly’.

If you would like to provide any guidance or a comment for publication, please do so no later than 6pm today (Sunday 22 December).

Many thanks,

[Reporter]”

7. The complainants considered this to be an “empty gesture” given that the article was published on a Monday and primary school offices are not staffed at weekends. They added that no attempt appeared to have been made to contact the headteacher or the Chair of Governors directly. The complainants said they would have been happy to provide comment and clarify the matter had the publication waited a day to contact the school.

8. During direct correspondence between the two parties, in relation to the article reporting that the headteacher "finally ha[d] her school reviewed" and that Ofsted had rated the school “inadequate”, the publication offered to amend the article to make the difference between the two schools clearer. It also said it would be willing to add a comment from the complainants to the online version of the article. The publication offered to publish the following correction in its corrections and clarifications box in print; as a footnote to the online article; and as a standalone online correction in its dedicated corrections and clarifications spot in the news homepage:

“We reported on 23 December that John Rankin Junior School had been rated “inadequate” and that its headteacher had tried to block Ofsted from carrying out its inspection. We are happy to make clear that the school was rated “inadequate” in two categories, and the headteacher tried to block the inspection of a different school.”

9. The complainants disagreed that the proposed correction wording made the correct position clear as this did not address the inclusion of the phrase “finally having [the] school reviewed” within the article. The complainants felt this phrase implied that Ms Cooper had something to hide by seeking a delay of the Ofsted inspection, which they disputed.

10. The publication then amended the proposed wording to address the complainants’ concerns about the inclusion of the phrase “finally” within the article and their perceived meaning of this:

“We reported on 23 December that John Rankin Junior School had been rated “inadequate” after its headteacher had “finally” allowed Ofsted to carry out its inspection. We are happy to make clear that the school was rated “inadequate” in two out of four categories, and the headteacher previously tried to block the inspection of a different school.”

Relevant Clause Provisions

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.

Mediated Outcome

11. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

12. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the article in full.

13. The complainants said that this would resolve the matter to their satisfaction.

14. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 02/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/03/2025