Press Complaints Commission
spacer spacer
SEARCH FOR     Or try the cases search  
Cases Banner
Making a complaint
Code of Practice Information
Code Advice

Complainant Name:
A man

Clauses Noted: 1

Publication: Times Educational Supplement


A man complained that an article reporting on the Badman review of home education contained inaccuracies. In particular, he was concerned that the article inaccurately suggested that the review had come about as a consequence of the Baby P case. The complainant also said that the reference to an investigation by the publication which stated that around 35,000 children were not receiving a basic education was misleading, and presented conjecture as fact.


The complaint was resolved when the publication printed the following clarification:

We would like to clarify that the article "Parents who teach pupils at home to be vetted" (June 12) did not intend to suggest a direct causal connection between the Baby P case and the Badman review of home education, or that the review was linked to DCSF guidance, mentioned separately in the article, about safeguarding children involved in prostitution. We would also like to clarify that the statement that "approximately 35,000 children are not receiving a basic education" was an extrapolation, based on the maximum figure cited for home-educated pupils and personal estimates from four home education inspectors. As the Badman review noted, the total number of home educated children remains unknown. Around 20,000 home-educated children are currently known to local authorities nationwide.

The publication also printed a comment piece about home education, written by the complainant.

Report: 80

<< Go Back
Home ] Cases ] Site map ]