By Mike Baker BBC education correspondent

Could you agree on what is the most pressing issue in education today? It was quite clear this week that the media could not.

The annual report of the chief inspector of schools in England is something of a set-piece in the education calendar. It is almost guaranteed to get heavy coverage.

In the days of Chris Woodhead - who was adept at offering one compelling news 'angle' - it was common for most newspapers and broadcasters to take the same line on the annual report.

That was not the case when the current head of Ofsted, David Bell, published his first annual report.

Wide canvas

As these things usually are, his comments were spread over a wide canvas ranging from early years to the sixth form. For the first time, the report covered further education too.

Many outside journalism may be puzzled, or annoyed, that the reports all focused on what was wrong

The report is the distillation of thousands of individual school inspections. Indeed, since Ofsted was created 10 years ago, the inspectors have called at more than 46,000 schools.

Apart from policy-makers and academics, relatively few people read the entire report. Instead they rely on the media.

But journalists are forced to be selective, reducing more than 100 pages of closely typed A4 to a report of between 300 and 1,000 words. Or, in the case of some of the shorter broadcast reports, a mere 105 words.

What's the angle?

So coverage of the annual report always provides a fascinating glimpse into the current preoccupations of media-land. The "angle" or focus taken by different newspapers or broadcast organisations reveals much about what journalists and their editors think is important.

Their readers, listeners or viewers may not always agree, although most editors are trying to anticipate what is most likely to grab their target audience's attention.

So which story did each newspaper go for? The Sun was in no doubt what its readers were most concerned about: asylum seekers.

Under the headline "Official Asylum Rush Causes Crisis for Schools", its report opened with a warning that "British kids are suffering as schools struggle to cope with a flood of asylum seekers' children".

Asylum seekers

Media studies students will note the use of the word "flood" which, as far as I recall, was not used in either the Ofsted report or at the news conference.

The Sun has a very acute news sense and the question of whether or not the children of asylum seekers should be taught in mainstream schools is highly topical and controversial.

However, the official report contained only brief references to the problem, commenting simply on problems arising from the "high mobility of pupils, often including large numbers of refugees".

But the core of The Sun's piece was based on comments by the chief inspector elicited, quite legitimately, by their reporter's questions at the news conference.

Influx

The Sun was not alone in taking this angle. The Daily Mail's headline was "Asylum Pupils Disrupt Lessons For Thousands". It described how "the huge influx of asylum seeker children is threatening the education of tens of thousands of pupils".

In a striking show of unanimity, The Daily Express and The Daily Star followed the same angle. The latter's headline was "Asylum Kids Disrupting Our Schools", while the Daily Express maintained the nautical imagery by talking of "a wave" of asylum-seeker children.

Anyone who has read Evelyn Waugh's novel Scoop will know just how anxious journalists get about the line being taken by rival newspapers.

A certain amount of huddled discussions between reporters often produces an agreed theme. That way your news desk can't complain that your story wasn't as good as The Daily Blah's.

However, one tabloid did take a different line. The Mirror's story, headlined "Class Wreckers", focused on Mr Bell's comments about the effect on standards generally of the bad behaviour of a minority of pupils.

Could do better

The broadsheet newspapers were more varied. For The Guardian, the top line was "Teachers Could Do Better, Says Ofsted". Its report focused on teaching standards and David Bell's view that pupils deserved better than just "satisfactory" teaching.

The Times also took a broader view of the report, with a headline that made a different play of that old stand-by of school reports: "could do better".

It highlighted Mr Bell's comments about the "almost intractable" problems faced by some 20% of secondary schools. Its headline: "Can't Do Better: the Ofsted Verdict on One in Five Schools".

The Independent took a similar line to the Mirror, headlining the problem with "a hard core of disruptive pupils", especially boys, in holding back standards.

Failing schools

The Daily Telegraph opted to focus on general standards of achievement, talking of "One Child In Four Left High and Dry As Schools Fail". It highlighted the report's comments that the education system was failing less academic children.

The Financial Times also focused on the "intractable" problems that stood in the way of the government's ambition to build a world-class education system. It was unusual in featuring the problems of further education colleges prominently in its report.

BBC television focused mainly on the under-achievement and poor behaviour of boys. BBC Radio led on the failure of the system to do well by the less academic pupils.

BBC News Online coupled that with the idea that "satisfactory" teaching was no longer good enough.

Puzzled

So, plenty of variety. No-one focused on the report's comments on nursery or primary education, special schools, teacher training, or sixth-forms or on the poor performance of the government's Education Action Zones initiative.

It is, of course, impossible for the media to cover everything in such a wide-ranging report. But if you had read, watched or listened to just one report you might have been left with a rather partial impression.

Many outside journalism may also be puzzled, or annoyed, that the reports all focused on what was wrong in the education system, rather than on the overall judgement that standards were rising (although many reports did mention this, with varying degrees of prominence).

Most journalists would justify this by arguing that it is right for the public debate to focus on what needs fixing.

After all, a story headlined "Most Things In Schools Are Fine" would probably not do much to galvanise anyone into action, although it might be reassuring for parents and teachers.

I wonder which news angle, if any of these, fitted your sense of what was the most pressing issue in education?