It has also allowed Conservatives to refresh memories of previous spin scandals, expressing concern that the e-mails have the “whiff” of earlier controversies.

The dispute centres on the decision of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) to publish two important sets of school results, primary school tests and GCSEs, on the same day. A series of e-mails made public yesterday showed that civil servants at the department had cautioned repeatedly against the clash, pointing out that they had been published on different days in previous years. But their concerns were overruled and officials were told that the Education Secretary’s special advisers “positively want” the results published on the same day. Both sets of figures were published at 9.30am on August 24. The GCSE results rose for the eighteenth successive year.

However, the primary school test results revealed falling standards in reading, writing and maths among seven-year-olds and standards among 11-year-olds which stalled well below government targets.

The e-mails were published on the website of the Statistics Commission watchdog, which had requested them from the DfES and asked for a formal explanation of why the timing of the primary school figures was changed this year.

In the correspondence, officals from both the Strategic Communications Planning Unit and the Department for Education and Skills press office raise concerns about suggestions to publish both sets of figures on the same day. But Andrew McCully, DfES director of school standards, wrote back: “This has already been discussed with John and with Special Advisers. We positively want it to be 24th.”

The code of practice on government statistics states that figures should be released as soon as they are available and at a time which promotes “widespread access and informed debate”. A key principle of the code states: “Timing will not be influenced by the content of the release or set in such a way as to create a presumed advantage to any particular group or individual.”

David Willetts, the Shadow Education Secretary, said that there was a strong indication of inappropriate political interference. He said: “This has the whiff of previous scandals about ‘burying bad news’.”

“The e-mails reveal that it was special advisers, acting on behalf of ministers, not statisticians, who determined the date of publication and pressed for a release of all three results on the same day.

“The smoking gun is the e-mail saying that Mr Johnson’s aides ‘positively want’ the results on the same day.”

A DfES spokesman said that correct procedures had been followed, and that August 24 was the earliest date the test result statistics could have been published.

FOLLOW THE E-MAIL TRAIL

In an e-mail sent on Wednesday July 12, Tracey Beames, from the Strategic Communications Planning Unit, and Ruma Multani, a Department for Education and Skills press officer, raised concerns over the plan to publish both primary school and GCSE figures at the same time. Ms Multani wrote:

“We can’t publish the GCSE and KS1 and 2 [primary school] stats on the same day. Last year we did the KS results on the 23rd Aug and the GCSE results on the 25th.

Can’t we do them a couple of days before the GCSE results?

“Also, we usually hold a press briefing for the KS results in which case Ministers will not want them on the same day”

But Andrew McCully a senior policy official in the DfES replied that the release of the Key Stage 1 and 2 statistics had already been discussed at a high level.

Mr McCully, who is director of school standards, wrote back:

“Ruma, this has already been discussed with John and with Special Advisers. We positively want it to be 24th. Andrew.”

The final message, which was sent two days later, showed this intervention had settled the matter. Ms Beames wrote:

“On this basis - happy with 24th Aug for KS1/2 stats.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Echo confirms brilliance of Danish astronomer
• Electric shock as sales of green cars reverse
• National Gallery defends latest show