Talk:Discovery New School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bousted views[edit]

I'm not convinced that the entirety of the Bousted paragraph is encyclopaedic. Looks to me like some POV politicking. I'd need some proof that no one other than Gove thought the school would succeed. Mary Bousted's opinion on this is just that - an opinion. Can it be tamed a little? Atlas-maker (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Bousted's reaction to the closure is "encyclopedic" as far as it is a direct quotation of her response, on behalf of the national teachers' union, to the school's failure. It is an opinion just the same as Andrew Snowdon's opinion that the school would succeed without qualified teachers, or Lord Nash's opinion that the school's teachers were unable to deliver "adequate teaching", or the governors' opinion that they had been given insufficient time to deliver adequate teaching. They are all opinions. Bousted's opinion also concurs with that of Tristram Hunt: that the school was set up without transparency or accountability and with unqualified staff. The failure of the school was predicted by numerous professionals with misgivings about its use of unqualified staff, including, iirc, the head teacher of the existing local state primary as early as the impact assessment stage of the process. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then presumably these 'numerous professionals' can be quoted as sources. But to suggest, as you seem to doing that these were the only voices in the argument is misleading and not WP:NPOV. The statement of Boustead's that the headteacher had no teaching qualifications is unfounded and potentially against WP:BIO. This seems to suggest that she had. I'm sure Ms Boustead has opinions on lots of things, but if they don't comply with WP:NPOV she doesn't get to air them here. I'm happy for the section to be written as a 'this-was-a-disaster' piece, but we need to keep the 'and-I-told-you-so' gloating out of it. I'd prefer the original contributors to come in and tame it down a bit because I don't want an edit war. But if not, I'll clean it up myself. Atlas-maker (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "original contributors" is just me, buster, so feel free to message me on my talk page asking me to come take a look at the article... Also feel free to add any opposing opinions expressed by educational professionals that you can find. As for NPOV, it is not carte blanche to delete content and critical opinions; as the policy states, reported opinions are fine as long as they are clearly attributed to the source and not presented as fact:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

And this BBC report states "Ms Snowdon, who was not a qualified teacher, has been replaced by Penny Crocker" (my emphasis). Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the Telegraph article says "...while Lindsey, who had been a primary school teacher and school governor for 10 years, is paid less than the lowest standard paygrade for her role as head teacher." So we have conflicting sources. Or is this a matter of definitions. Is MaryB making a rather arbitrary point about not recognising Lindsay Snowden's qualifications?
And when you say that my sources must be education professionals, which part of the Wikipedia policy canon are you quoting? Or is it just your own non-NPOV canon that says that? And presumably also includes union officials in it's 'official' list?
The output must be balanced and must not fail WP:NPOV which it currently does. So I have no problem fixing that. Atlas-maker (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph article makes no assertions about Mrs. Snowdon's qualifications. The Observer however reports "that a second unqualified headteacher of a free school has quit her post following criticism. Last week the Guardian revealed that Annaliese Briggs, a 27-year-old who was unqualified when she was appointed as headteacher of Pimlico free school in London, had resigned after just three weeks in the job. Now it has emerged that Lindsey Snowdon has stepped down from the Discovery new school in Crawley, West Sussex, after a stinging Ofsted report into her work at the 60-pupil primary free school..."
Attempting to dismiss Mary Bousted as a mere "union official" is plain silly. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never used the word 'mere'.
The issue of "unqualified" headteacher is quite obviously a different one to MBs reference to a lack of teaching qualifications. There is no legal requirement for any head to have a teaching qualification. There is a requirement for all maintained school headteacher candidates to have an NPQH - the heads qualification. Its not a teaching qualification. Its a management qualification. So when a source refers to "… an 'unqualified' headteacher …" it is quite different to saying "The Head was not a qualified teacher". Perhaps MB doesn't understand the difference, but I'd doubt it. Atlas-maker (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have a fixation on Bousted. Snowdon does not have qualified teacher status, simple as. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And does that mean she has, as Bousted said, 'no teaching qualifications' ? Hint: The correct answer is "Not necessarily". Bousted never mentioned QTS. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(reset)Mrs Snowdon has a BSc (Hons) and a Montessori Diploma. No EYPS, no PGCE and no QTS. She is not a "qualified teacher". Instead of wasting my time here with your petty and off-the-mark attempts at point scoring, go look up the school's website and study the detailed list of which member of staff held which qualifications. The only staff with QTS prior to the October/November reshuffle were Mr R. Eifion-Wynne and Mrs S. Turner (part time teacher). Mrs Allen and Miss Collings had Early Years Professional Status - similar to QTS - and Ms S. Garrett had PGCE (the stepping stone to QTS). Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But they all have teaching qualifications. Bousted got it wrong. Pretty poor for someone who was Head of English back in the day.
Or maybe not! Maybe she was politicking with her words, using phraseology that spins a particular viewpoint, i.e. not WP:NPOV
Either way, she was wrong. Snowden has teaching qualifications. Different ones to many other teachers, especially to those in maintained schools, but entirely legal and appropriate under the Free School regime. So including such a quotation in the article potentially breaches WP:BIO given that it wrongly casts aspersions on Snowden's professional capabilities. And it's simply not WP:NPOV. And I still don't understand why including MBs opinions makes for an encyclopaedic article in any case. It seems to be a quote thats there just for its own sake rather than adding anything to the article itself. Is there any way we can agree some changes to rectify the situation? Or do we perhaps need an outside view to help us come to an agreeable consensus? Atlas-maker (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have to agree to disagree; Snowdon is no more a qualified teacher than I am a qualified airline pilot - although I have played on a Windows flight sim, so under the Free School regime I probably am and could teach flying lessons. Ultimately, I don't own the article and I really couldn't care less what you do to change it. I don't share your point of view but I'm not going to edit war with you over something as trivial as this. Knock yourself out. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Ofsted reports[1] to try to see if the old head was qualified. They don't say unambiguously, but do say "The headteacher reported to inspectors that she does not have the skills to [check teaching]." and "It is essential that a credible professional is appointed to the headship without delay". The BBC seports "Discovery New School said that although Ms Snowdon did not have qualified teacher status she had experience in other teaching roles".[2] I think it would be valid to say in the article that the BBC reported this. From the Ofsted comments it seems very unlikely she had a NPQH, but they don't say that outright. Rwendland (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well either of those quotes would be authoritative reliable sources for a paragraph on the causes or reasons for closure. However the Ofsted quote is a primary source and as such probably not hugely suitable for direct inclusion. It would be good to find a secondary source referencing those parts of the Ofsted report and use that. But including quotes willy-nilly does not a good article make. There has to be a purpose to the quote. It needs to be part of a cohesive whole. A paragraph or section of good prose arguing a particular viewpoint or explaining an event can contain such quotes. My argument above was that the Boustead quote seemed to be standalone and illustrating nothing but her ability to spin a particular line. Atlas-maker (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is/was a cohesive narrative running through the article demonstrating that many involved in the education professions warned that the school would fail without sufficient, and sufficiently, qualified staff, and were ultimately proved correct. Your "argument above" was simply to continue browbeating until everyone else lost interest. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 13:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask a number of times above for an explanation of the purpose of the Boustead quote and yet none was forthcoming until your last reply. If it had I might have suggested that to balance the education profession opposition, and thus produce an NPOV article, such a construction could have as a counterpoint any references of support that the school received beforehand. I would have thought that quotes from Blowers beforehand and Boustead afterwards don't really work to argue the case. Really we would need an " ... and I told you so" from Blowers after the fact to match up with her prescient concerns beforehand. Or a quote from Boustead beforehand. And then to perhaps restructure the article to keep both close to each other rather than writing on a timeline. Atlas-maker (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Discovery New School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Discovery New School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discovery_New_School&oldid=1206982465"