Complaint to ITN and Ofcom re broadcast on Hackney New School, 30th April, 1st May (ITN Website)

1. The artificial tone is calculated to convey concern and anger. The reporter does not question the comments of complainants, but acts as their advocates, rejecting school leaders’ comments all but one issue – that of previous poor behaviour – which is minimised in final interview with ITN colleague.  
2. 26 the reporter does not question the claim of “behind closed doors”. The school is open to visitors. If there were restrictions due to COVID, this should have been made clear.
3. The CEO’s notes on effective behaviour systems and harmony are confirmed in a second Ofsted report of a monitoring visit https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/23/147653. This is not mentioned, making it appear that the CEO’s comments were an unsubstantiated assertion, which is not true.
4. The July 2029 Ofsted report is fairly presented – 3.01 – but the November follow up, above, is not. This is unfair.
5. 27. The school is not responsible for headlines in the Evening Standard, but the reporter used this headline as if it were evidence of a claim by the school itself, which is clearly untrue. The headteacher’s comments, below, are contained in the article. Furthermore, the reporter conflates the headteacher’s comments on fighting bullying during lockdown, with the effect of changes in breaktimes, which cannot be an issue during lockdown. The statement by a member of staff that lunchtime and breaktime clubs “don’t exist” was neither challenged nor investigated.  The sequence shows that the reporter has set this up as a claim by the school and then attacked it. The CEO says that “It would be foolish of a school to say that they had ever eliminated bullying”. The reporter says, “Which is what you did say,”, though the headteacher’s words are clear in the article.

“Headteacher Charlotte Whelan said there have been just five incidents of bullying reported       in the last year, including cyberbullying during lockdown, and there have been no permanent exclusions.”

For the avoidance of doubt, that does not constitute a claim of elimination.

6. The number of detentions may well indicate action to enforce proper discipline following lockdown. Its presentation and tone indicates the view of the reporter on sanctions, rather than an error on the part of the school. There is no discussion of the reason for detentions, or of the pattern. The CEO noted a reduction in the use of detention as the term progressed.   The reporter’r selective use of evidence, and her suggestion 5.50 “surely that disrupts children’s learning” – emphasis on “surely” – shows bias and a lack of balance.  
7. The student sending an email to staff – it is not surprising that she did not include the Trust CEO – was not asked for evidence of her allegations or questioned on them. “I have an opinion, and it matters” should be set alongside the opinions of other pupils, which the reporter did not seek. A visit to an assembly does not constitute a fair evaluation of the work of a school, and we did not see any of the content of the “sermon”. Was it a purely religious presentation, as this word implies?
8. The expression “dangerous school, as he puts it”, and “he believes” minimise the evidence of actual danger – the school had an emergency closure for three days as staff had lost control (Ofsted, June 2019). “He believes” further ignores the evidence of Ofsted’s second visit (November 2019), which showed evidence of improvement beyond the CEO’s belief.
9. This news item was presented from a point of view. It is unbalanced, selective of evidence, unfair, and an abuse of the authority provided by a news programme. The broadcaster should apoligise and provide a right of reply.