Inspector of schools is accused of bias
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Chief Inspector of Schools was forced to defend himself against accusations of political bias yesterday as local authorities released details of a report on reading standards which they said had been given a negative spin.
Inspectors who carried out the inquiry into reading in the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Islington and Southwark had had the final draft of their work changed.
The charge was denied by the chief inspector, Chris Woodhead, who said the data in both versions was consistent.
"If it is political to write as clearly as we can about the fact that significant numbers of children from our most disadvantaged communities are not learning to read then I would like somebody to explain what the word 'political' means," he said.
Reading scores collected during the inspection showed that eight out of 10 pupils were below average, but in government tests only three out of 10 had failed to reach expected levels. The inspectors' results were in the report but the discrepancy was not highlighted.
The boroughs, which were sent a copy of the report, said that a sentence which said reading was "well organised in three out of five classes" was altered to say that "weaknesses... affected the teaching of reading in two out of five classes."
Where reading had been classed as "satisfactory or better in approximately two thirds of the lessons" it was now "unsatisfactory or poor" in one third.
A supportive paragraph which said teachers were overwhelmingly pragmatic and non-doctrinaire had been removed.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments