ASA Adjudication on Learning & Skills Council for Hampshire and Isle of Wight

Ad

Two ads for a proposal to create a sixth-form centre.

a. A regional press ad stated “The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has made a proposal to consolidate the sixth forms of the five high schools into one sixth form centre … invite you to meet them at one of a series of events being held on the island in order to hear more about their £25 million investment proposal and rationale for a new sixth form centre … “.

b. A leaflet stated, on page one, “Share our vision. Community Newsletter + A beacon of educational excellence … “. On page three, the text stated “The opportunity for all young people on the Isle of Wight to realise their potential … Results that will match other high performing sixth form centres in the South East ... This is an example of the results achieved by a dedicated sixth form centre in the South East of similar size to the Isle of Wight proposal. The new sixth form centre will guarantee results that match other sixth form centres in the South East through the implementation of robust quality assurance … “. Underneath the text “Example College” were four circular diagrams that showed: 90% of students had passed their AS exams with 34% awarded with an A or B grade and 99% of students had passed their A2v exams with 52% awarded grades A-C. The next page was headlined “The creation of a beacon of educational excellence” and the text stated “A beacon centre will attract a range of good teachers who between them will have vast experience … “.

Issue

The complainant challenged the claims:

1. £25 million investment proposal" in the press ad, because he understood that any investment would be shared between the proposed centre and the Isle of Wight College;

2. "This is an example of the results achieved by a dedicated sixth form centre in the South East" in the leaflet, because he believed the comparison was unfair as the example results were taken from a college that had a selective entry policy and only accepted students with a minimum of five GCSE grades higher than a C;

3. "The new sixth form centre will guarantee results", because he believed it was impossible to guarantee good exam results and

4. "a beacon centre", because he understood that it was a title given to schools, from the Department for Education and Skills, who had achieved a high standard.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. The Learning & Skills Council (LSC) explained that a sum of £25 million capital funding had provisionally been set aside for the development of a sixth-form centre on the Isle of Wight: they provided a copy of the LSC South-East regional capital strategy as substantiation for that. They said the final amount of investment would be subject to approval by the LSC capital committee and dependent on the final architectural specification and build programme, but pointed out that the £25 million proposal related only to the development of the proposed sixth-form centre. They explained that, although the proposal was to co-locate the centre on the site of the Isle of Wight College, the investment would not be shared with the College. They further explained that the College was seeking funds for the redevelopment of its campus to the approximate value of £10 million and, if it was approved, this would be an additional investment and not part of the proposed sixth-form centre development.

2. LSC explained that the example was Havant College, a sixth-form college in Hampshire that had the same range of subjects, and was a similar size, as the proposed centre. They explained that Havant College's A-level (Level 3) results were consistently above the national average and it operated a fair admissions policy for entry to its sixth-form programmes that was comparable to the majority of sixth-form providers locally and nationally. They said five GCSEs at grade C or equivalent was required for entry but explained that individual entry was dependent on a number of factors and the stated entry criteria were a guide only. They said this was a standard measure of GCSE achievement used by the Government and was an established pre-requisite for entry onto Level 3 sixth-form programmes. They argued that Havant College did not operate a selective entry policy but applied established and common entry criteria to ensure those learners with appropriate prior attainment were admitted to their sixth-form programme. They said, after receiving comments from elected members of the Isle of Wight Council, the local Member of Parliament and the general public, they had amended their publicity material to make clear that Havant College was the comparative A-Level provider.

The complainant pointed out that Havant College was a sixth-form college only, with its own management and governance, but the proposed centre would be under the governance and management of a wider general further education (FE) college. He said that the results of general FE colleges with sixth-form provisions like the proposed centre, specifically Burnley College, Knowsley College, Park Lane in Leeds and Sussex Downs College, did not have as good results as Havant College or, in the main, as good as the Isle of Wight College. The complainant also pointed out that Havant College had a wide community from which to select students and, as the leading college in that community, would attract the most academically gifted students. He said that the proposed centre would have a smaller catchment area than Havant College and explained that the Joint Area Review, for the Isle of Wight Council in 2006, had observed that by the age of 16 the percentage of young people achieving five of more A* to C grades at GCSE was well below the national average.

3. LSC said the use of the word "guarantee" reflected their confidence in their judgment that the proposal was the best way to improve education in the area. However, they accepted that they were unable to guarantee absolutely that exam results would improve as a consequence of the proposal being fully accepted. They said, following comment from elected members of the Isle of Wight Council, the local Member of Parliament, and the general public, they had agreed not to use the word "guarantee" in their future publications and ads.

4. LSC explained that "Beacon" status was a recognised and established quality "kite mark" awarded to providers across the post-16 learning and skills sector. They said the scheme was administered and co-ordinated by the Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) and currently 87 post-16 providers were accredited as having "Beacon" status, including 29 sixth-form colleges. They explained that the word "Beacon" was used in the context of its meaning of a guide or inspiration and to convey the aspirations that the LSC has for the new sixth-form centre.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA understood that the proposed £25 million investment for the centre would not be shared with the Isle of Wight College. We concluded that the claim did not mislead.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 8.1 (Matters of opinion) and 19.1 (Fair comparison) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted the college chosen for comparison was an established sixth-form college that was formerly a Grammar School which became independent in 1992. We also understood that it had had an excellent reputation in the local area for 47 years and still retained many of its staff members from when it was a Grammar School. We noted Havant College's policy was based on individual merit and a minimum of five GCSE grades higher than a C were not an absolute requirement for entry. We understood, however, that it was common for the entry criteria of five GCSE grades higher than a C to be applied for entry to sixth-form education. We acknowledged that LSC had amended their marketing material to make clear that the results were from Havant College, a college of similar size and scope to the proposed centre. We nevertheless concluded that, because the college used for comparative purposes was an established independent sixth-form college and not part of an FE college, the comparison was unfair and likely to mislead.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 8.1 (Matters of opinion) and 19.1 (Fair comparison).

3. Upheld

We welcomed LSC's decision not to use the word "guarantee" again in reference to exam results.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 8.1 (Matters of opinion) and 19.1 (Fair comparison).

4. Upheld

We noted LSC's explanation of "Beacon" status and understood that it was what they hoped the centre would be designated, if the proposal for the centre was agreed. We concluded that the claim "a beacon centre" misleadingly implied that the proposed centre would be awarded "Beacon" status as soon as it was opened.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 8.1 (Matters of opinion) and 19.1 (Fair comparison).

Action

We told LSC not to use the ad again and advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team for help with future ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)