Talk:New Line Learning

Seems that this page was once again the victim of someone with an individual axe to grind. The references combined with the way attainment standards were quoted was totally misleading. I have edited this page again as an outsider checking facts against the first hand sources of attainment data and removing personal comments that appear to be unobjective. Please only edit things with factual accuracy and don't misuse statistics to make things appear better or worse than they really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Lynch (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note, a prior incarnation of this page was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Line Learning. This version did not originate as a recreation, because it didn't have the attack page issues that the prior incarnation did. Whether this fails WP:V or WP:OR I am not opining upon. Simply noting that this is not legit for speedy deletion as a recreation. GRBerry 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is totally outrageous look at what the students think this is totally POV and as much of a disgrace to the students suffering at the school as the original article was to the management staff at the school —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.223.88 (talk • contribs) .

I created this page in good faith without knowing the previous history - I do not work at the school, I visited as an independent consultant. I have reverted the page with minor edits. (Including ensuring its basic factual style without making judgements about the outcomes of intended aims. The individual who has been vandalising this page clearly has some personal axe to grind. The New Line Learning Project is of general educational interest and is a useful inclusion if the information remains factual and free from emotional invective.

This page is disgusting it's an advertisement not a factual based encyclopedia explanation. Although the previous 'vive le stag' page was satire it was a lot more factual than this. I recommend this page be re-written

The only disgusting thing is when anonymous people vandalise Wikipedia. There are many entries in Wikipedia on schools and educational projects. No doubt there are political aspects to them but as long as they are presented in a factual style without making judgements as to the benefits or otherwise of the project they are perfectly reasonable. Offensive satire not only detracts from Wikipedia but will convince any reader that the person making such edits has a very individual and personal reason for doing it. If you want to make complaints about schools, go to your Local Education Authority, take it up with a face to face meeting with the Governing Body and/or write to your MP. Wikipedia is not the place for personal vendettas. All schools in the UK are regularly inspected - this one quite recently - by independent teams from Her Majesty's Inspectorate. If there was something badly wrong with a school it is very unlikely that it would survive such an inspection. In the extreme schools get closed as a result of failing to meet appropriate standards. There is no evidence of this in this particular case. I used to lead inspection teams in UK schools so I have first hand knowledge of this.

so that this page does not read as an advertisement, there should be a section which divulges the various criticisms of the NLL system. At the moment it is all written from the POV of someone who is pro New line learning. It should be said that amongst many people, especially students, this is not the case.

I'd like to know why this person believes recently to be seven years ago when a OFSTED inspection must take place every 3 years!

OFSTED inspections vary in frequency. In general schools get occasional short visits by LA and HMI. Schools giving cause for concern tend to get inspected more regularly. While balance is desirable, putting negatives first is hardly balanced. The normal pattern would be to describe the provision objectively and give a balance list of strengths and weaknesses at the end. Balance also means free from emotive style. I'd suggest moving the negative to the end and balancing by providing the positive outcomes too.

Out of date

This information is terribly out of date - anyone still watching this page? = Sara FB (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)