How I checked whether the report was accurate was by going on the website which they got their statistics from which was the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). When trying to look at whether 55-65 year olds had a ‘higher proficiency in literacy and numeracy’ than 16-24 year olds, the website did not show me this as I could only look at the differences in ages, not gender. It also showed that out of 39 (39 being the highest) countries, the UK was 24th in the ranking for reading performance and for mathematics performance, out of 38 (38 being the highest) countries, UK was 20th. They carried out an interview whereby they claim a total of 166,000 were interviewed in 24 countries, although Wales was not covered/a part of the interview. This is appropriate because it allows for the older age bracket and the younger age bracket to be tested to show evidence toward or against the article headline. The headline is misleading because the OECD website does not show the performance in difference of ages and it also doesn’t state what year the data is collected from. When looking at 2013 (the year the article was published), it didn’t show any data so I had to use my initiative and collect data from the year before (2012). An alternative headline I would change it to would be ‘UK 24th in ranking for reading performance out of 38 countries’.
Link to article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449481/Education-crisis-Pupils-worse-maths-literacy-grandparents.html
Link to OECD website: https://data.oecd.org/united-kingdom.htm#profile-education