This website is now archived. To find out what BERG did next, go to

Blog posts tagged as 'journalism'

Mag+, a concept video on the future of digital magazines

I’ve got something I want to share with you.

We’ve been working with our friends at Bonnier R&D exploring the future of digital magazines. Bonnier publish Popular Science and many other titles.

Magazines have articles you can curl up with and lose yourself in, and luscious photography that draws the eye. And they’re so easy and enjoyable to read. Can we marry what’s best about magazines with the always connected, portable tablet e-readers sure to arrive in 2010?

This video prototype shows the take of the Mag+ project.

You can see this same video bigger on Vimeo.

The articles run in scrolls, not pages, and are placed side-to-side in kind of mountain range (as we call it internally). Magazines still arrive in issues: people like the sense of completion at the end of each.

Mag+ in landscape

You flip through by shifting focus. Tap the pictures on the left of the screen to flip through the mag, tap text on the right to dive in.

Bedside manner

It is, we hope, like stepping into a space for quiet reading. It’s pleasant to have an uncluttered space. Let the Web be the Web. But you can heat up the words and pics to share, comment, and to dig into supplementary material.

Heated Mode

The design has an eye to how paper magazines can re-use their editorial work without having to drastically change their workflow or add new teams. Maybe if the form is clear enough then every mag, no matter how niche, can look gorgeous, be super easy to understand, and have a great reading experience. We hope so. That gets tested in the next stage, and rolled into everything learned from this, and feedback from the world at large! Join the discussion at the Bonnier R&D Beta Lab.

Recently there have been digital magazine prototypes by Sports Illustrated, and by Wired. It’s fascinating to see the best features of all of these.

Many teams at Bonnier have been involved in Mag+. This is a synthesis of so much work, research, and ideas. But I want to say in particular it’s a pleasure to collaborate with our friends at R&D. And here at BERG let me call out some specific credits: Jack Schulze, Matt Jones, Campbell Orme and Timo Arnall. Thanks all!

Treemap ToC

(See also Bonnier R&D’s Mag+ page, where you can leave comments and contact Bonnier, and the thoughts of Kicker Studio — who will be expanding the concept to robust prototype over the next few months in San Francisco! BERG’s attention has now moved to the social and wider services around Mag+ – we’ll be mapping those out and concepting – and we’re looking forward to working with all the teams into 2010. Awesome.)

1 in 3 schools are what? A story of what statistics can tell us

In the UK, schools are inspected every few years to make sure they’re educating kids well and run effectively.

Ofsted, the agency that visits the schools and writes the inspection reports, yesterday released their 2008/09 Annual Report. It’s a 160 page beast of stats, strengths and weaknesses, everything schools and the government need to focus their congratulations and new efforts. There’s a short commentary at the beginning which is great, but on the whole it has quite a lot of technical language.

The Daily Mail covered the report with a shocking headline, How 1 in 3 schools fail to provide adequate teaching. Gosh.

We decided to have a basic poke at the numbers ourselves, since we’ve just started working on Ashdown and have them all handy. (Ashdown is our name for a suite of beautiful and useful products we’re making for parents and teachers around UK schools data.)

So let’s have a look.

It’s pupils that matter to parents, so let’s look at 9- and 14-year-olds.

There are some 160,000 9-year-olds at schools in England that have been inspected in the last year (between September 2008 and August 2009). And about 161,000 14-year-olds, if you care about secondary schools. Let’s see how they break down…

9+14-year-olds at recently inspected schools in England

Pupils at schools recently graded by Ofsted in England

Happy schools are better schools.

A shade off two-thirds of all 9-year-olds and all 14-year-olds go to schools that are good or outstanding. But how about that Daily Mail headline? What does “not adequate” mean?

To find out about that I should say something about how Ofsted gives grades to schools. This is the terminology bit.

Oftsed grades

Ofsted do a few types of inspection, one of which is called a “Section 5 Inspection.” At the top of a report (here’s an example, taken totally at random) there’s a line called “Overall effectiveness of the school.” Right by it is a grade… 1 and 2 are outstanding and good respectively. There are also grades 3 and 4.

Grade 3 is “satisfactory.” You can read how Ofsted inspectors evaluate schools. It’s a bit dry, but in a nutshell a grade of ‘satisfactory’ means this: there’s nothing wrong with student performance, school leadership, value for money, or possibilities for improvement. Ofsted promise to inspect the school again within 3 years, and will make an interim visit just about half the time.

“Inadequate,” grade 4, means something is wrong with either how the kids are being educated, or the ability of the teachers to lead and improve the school. It’s pretty harsh.

1 in 3 schools are what?

Looking at our numbers, one in three pupils go to schools that are satisfactory or inadequate. Hang on, the headline said “fail to provide adequate teaching.” But only one in twenty pupils go to “inadequate” schools. Nineteen out of twenty go to schools that are satisfactory or better.

My confusion, I guess, arises because the headline uses a word which is very close to Ofcom’s own terminology – “inadequate” (grade 4) and “adequate” (in the headline, unused by Ofsted) – and so becomes ambiguous. That’s a shame. Is satisfactory adequate or not? I have no idea. How much do we care? The ambiguity obscures these discussions, but it’s great that journalism is provoking them. It’s huge, the difference in the numbers, between “satisfactory” being a grade we celebrate or one we don’t tolerate.

It’s also worth thinking about the purpose of these kind of statistics. What are stats for?

Let’s revisit Ofsted inspections. If you look again at a report (here’s another random example) and scroll riiight to the bottom, you’ll get a letter from the inspectors themselves written to the pupils of the school. In it the inspectors outline the strengths and weaknesses of the school, and what the school (and the pupils) need to do to improve. And that’s the whole point. It reinforces what’s good, and points out where effort is needed.

The Annual Report does a similar job. It’s a summary view to help focus the congratulations and efforts of parents, teachers and government bodies. Is it great or a concern that 19 out of 20 pupils go to schools that are satisfactory or better? Should we say only 19 out of 20?

In short: is “satisfactory” good enough? These numbers don’t tell us. That’s a matter for public debate.

A new kind of journalism

Holding that the job of statistics is to help target effort, we can go a little further.

We made another chart, for pupils at the “most deprived” schools, and how those schools are doing. Ofsted define the “most deprived” schools as the 20% of schools with the highest proportion of free school meals, so we did the same. (That means we’re looking at inspected schools in England that offer free school meals to 26% of their pupils or more.)


Pupils at “most deprived” schools recently graded by Ofsted in England

A couple of things to note here… the first is that we’re dealing with 37,000 9-year-olds and 23,000 14-year-olds. That’s a lot of kids. The second is that the general shape of the graph has changed. There are, proportionately, more inadequate schools.

And that’s an interesting story: if you’re a pupil aged 9 or 14, anywhere in England, we’ve seen you have about 1 in 20 chance of being at inadequate school. But if you go to one of the most deprived schools, that’s more like 1 in 13.

Now that sucks. Should we really allow there to be more inadequate schools in the most deprived areas? Shouldn’t those schools, in fact, be so well funded that they’re better than schools in general? Well, that priorities decision is a matter for our democratic system, and these are the kind of numbers journalism can provide to inform that debate.

Reports and reporting

What Ofsted’s Annual Report shows is that most pupils – a very large majority – go to schools that are satisfactory, good, or outstanding. But that pupils who go to the most deprived schools aren’t quite as lucky. I still don’t know what the difference is really like, on the ground, between a “satisfactory” and a “good” school, but I’ll reveal my personal politics: I’m glad I now have an opinion where the government should be targeting my tax money, and, from the inspection evaluation notes, I think that the report shows that generally schools are doing a great job.

There are a hundred stories like this in the data. It’ll take a bunch of hard graft and some clever maths to find the really surprising stories (that’s part of what we’re up to). But it’s all there. Actually it’s mostly all there in Ofsted Annual Report too, but percentages are hard to read and so another big part of Ashdown’s job is to add friendly meaning and understanding. That is, to point out which of these hundreds of numbers are important, from the perspective of pupils, parents and teachers.

Thanks Tom for a whole load of number crunching very early in the project, and thanks Matt Brown for whipping up these graphs!

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming…

Recent Posts

Popular Tags