<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Last drop of trust evaporates as Alan Wells misleads the public over crucial GCSE results</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.saveiowschools.co.uk/archives/156/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.saveiowschools.co.uk/archives/156</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:11:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Wendy</title>
		<link>http://www.saveiowschools.co.uk/archives/156#comment-1676</link>
		<dc:creator>Wendy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:04:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saveiowschools.co.uk/archives/156#comment-1676</guid>
		<description>Another discrepancy. This from IW radio news (also on their website today) about the IW's improved 2007 KS3 results:
"The Isle of Wight is now just above the average for England but Alan Wells says the Council is not happy at just being average. He adds that these figures further strengthen the Council's desire to deliver an education system the Island can be proud of."

So how does this tally with the Council's vision as outlined in its One Island plan (detailed on their website):
"Campaign: Raising Standards in Island Schools
Background and purpose:
To raise standards in Island schools at key stage 2, 3 and 4 to national averages through a programme of leadership support at all middle and high schools which focuses on pupil data management, effective quality assurance systems and processes and preventative strategies." Link here:
http://www.iwight.com/OneIsland/respect/raisingstandardsinschools.asp

Has Mr Wells read this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another discrepancy. This from IW radio news (also on their website today) about the IW&#8217;s improved 2007 KS3 results:<br />
&#8220;The Isle of Wight is now just above the average for England but Alan Wells says the Council is not happy at just being average. He adds that these figures further strengthen the Council&#8217;s desire to deliver an education system the Island can be proud of.&#8221;</p>
<p>So how does this tally with the Council&#8217;s vision as outlined in its One Island plan (detailed on their website):<br />
&#8220;Campaign: Raising Standards in Island Schools<br />
Background and purpose:<br />
To raise standards in Island schools at key stage 2, 3 and 4 to national averages through a programme of leadership support at all middle and high schools which focuses on pupil data management, effective quality assurance systems and processes and preventative strategies.&#8221; Link here:<br />
<a href="http://www.iwight.com/OneIsland/respect/raisingstandardsinschools.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.iwight.com/OneIsland/respect/raisingstandardsinschools.asp</a></p>
<p>Has Mr Wells read this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.saveiowschools.co.uk/archives/156#comment-1666</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:58:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saveiowschools.co.uk/archives/156#comment-1666</guid>
		<description>Anonymous, looks to me like Alan Wells is the one who needs to explain himself. I'm glad someone out there is scrutinising it - be nice if the local media would check the figures themselves (I expect they thought he knew what he was talking about).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anonymous, looks to me like Alan Wells is the one who needs to explain himself. I&#8217;m glad someone out there is scrutinising it - be nice if the local media would check the figures themselves (I expect they thought he knew what he was talking about).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.saveiowschools.co.uk/archives/156#comment-1663</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:45:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saveiowschools.co.uk/archives/156#comment-1663</guid>
		<description>Hi,

I too looked at the BBC website data and as you say we came 94th out of 149 (5+ A*-C E&#38;M). If you paste the data into Excel, then sort on Average Point Score then we come 123rd, and if sorted on Contextual Vale Added, 111th. So it would appear that we are relatively better (and improving) at getting people to the (5+ A*-C E&#38;M) hurdle, but not so good developing the APS (high Point Score useful for onward study).

But why the difference between 149 or 150 Local Authorities? The BBC lists 149, but the DCSF notes state 150. Searching the DCSF pull-down menu, it lists "City of London" which the BBC does not. Earlier postings here noted there were no state schools in the City of London. The DCSF City of London entry states (5+ A*-C E&#38;M)=46.7%. 

Could it be that both statistics are correct? Could it be that the sources have just compiled the figures differently?

I can't prove that AW's figures are correct, but neither can I prove they are incorrect. Any further info from SNT would be great.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I too looked at the BBC website data and as you say we came 94th out of 149 (5+ A*-C E&amp;M). If you paste the data into Excel, then sort on Average Point Score then we come 123rd, and if sorted on Contextual Vale Added, 111th. So it would appear that we are relatively better (and improving) at getting people to the (5+ A*-C E&amp;M) hurdle, but not so good developing the APS (high Point Score useful for onward study).</p>
<p>But why the difference between 149 or 150 Local Authorities? The BBC lists 149, but the DCSF notes state 150. Searching the DCSF pull-down menu, it lists &#8220;City of London&#8221; which the BBC does not. Earlier postings here noted there were no state schools in the City of London. The DCSF City of London entry states (5+ A*-C E&amp;M)=46.7%. </p>
<p>Could it be that both statistics are correct? Could it be that the sources have just compiled the figures differently?</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t prove that AW&#8217;s figures are correct, but neither can I prove they are incorrect. Any further info from SNT would be great.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
