Talk:Michaela Community School

Updating proposer team details for accuracy.
Apparently, I'm in an edit war on this page. Over the past months, I have sought to correct the page to reflect the fact that the school was not co-founded by Katharine Birbalsingh and Suella Braverman; it was in fact founded by a group of people, including Katharine and Suella. It appears the reason why this correction keeps getting removed is that one of the references is to a Times article which erroneously refers to Katharine and Suella as co-founders.

I have contacted the school who will clarify matters on the school's website which will hopefully end this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTweeks (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As you are discovering the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is "verifiability" not "truth": articles report what WP:RELIABLE sources say, not what is true, so if you want to get your change to stick you need to find a reliable source to support it. Whether the school's own website would be considered reliable for this is somewhat questionable, but that would be better than nothing. In the meantime please remember to WP:SIGN your posts on talk pages with ~ . You might also consider whether you need to declare a conflict of interest: see WP:COI for more details. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Conservative Party links
Why are all mentions of links to the Conservative Party constantly erased? One of the co-founders and current sitting governors is a serving Conservative MP, and the school was set up after Katharine Birbalsingh spoke at a Conservative Party conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.13.124 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume it's being reverted for being WP:UNDUE, which it certainly is. We don't given biographical details of individuals in an article about a school when we have wikilinks to their own pages, where anyone interested can find out all about Katharine Birbalsingh and Suella Braverman. In the meantime please remember to WP:SIGN your posts on talk pages. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you actually explain why it's supposedly WP:UNDUE? You claim to not give biographical details of individuals, but you've made sure to keep Suella Braverman's maiden name included whenever she is mentioned - that's more relevant to the article than her role as an MP in founding the school? That clearly should be the other way around. Their website even mentions she's a sitting MP on their page listing governors. Even her own page history shows it didn't exist prior to her being elected as an MP. Finally, why were all the many sources describing the school as "controversial" removed?86.158.13.124 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't done any such thing. I am simply explaining what I think is trying to do. You should address your questions to him. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You reverted my edit, Jonathan A Jones. I'm asking you to explain why adding "MP" to someone's name - which is how they are addressed - is less relevant to the article than including someone's maiden name. 86.158.13.124 (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I revereted your edit labelled "removed claim about GCSE results - couldn't find reliable source" because that was absolute nonsense given that the article contained several perfectly reliable sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So much nonsense, that you had to add it after the fact. Absolute hypocrisy.86.158.13.124 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh my word - you've reverted my additions without discussion, and have banned edit privileges for me, ironically without discussing any of my additions. If sources describe the school as strict, and the same sources also call it controversial, why is that not deemed relevant? Why are links to the Conservative Party in helping found the school not deemed relevant when talking about its background? I think any reasonable person would argue that any school described as "controversial" is notable and unusual, and the consistent attempts at hiding this here just smacks of trying to portray the school in the best light. 86.158.13.124 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes WP:UNDUE and what Jonathan said regarding their names which are Wikilinked — I've removed the maiden name as covered in bio article. The intro already mentions it being described as the 'strictest school in Britain' which will suffice. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way does it suffice? Strict and controversial are not the same thing. Also, for a free school to have such close links to Government in terms of how it was set up and by who is, in itself, unusual and notable. There's no undue credit nor criticism being given to the Conservatives in any of my additions. If you could please clarify these two points, instead of a blanket statement that would be much appreciated. Tagging please. Thanks. 86.158.223.76 (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Structural Problems
Quite simply it reads like a press release. The quotes are selective, and many of the 'references' are primary sources, it uses blogs, it uses school twitter feeds, due to Ms Birbal Singh s close relation ship with one political party- newspapers who make large donations to that political party cannot be regarded as WP:RS.

Lets look at reference 28 (a tweet) and 29- fom the schools website. These back up a laudatory sentence- straight out of promotional material. Look at what the reference actually says:

''Founder and head since the school started in 2014, the vibrant and dramatic Katharine Birbalsingh MA Oxon NPQH (40s). A graduate of New College Oxford (French and philosophy), she did her teacher training at the Institute of Education. Previously deputy head of a South London state secondary, she spent all her years since university teaching in inner London state secondary schools, working her way through the usual channels. She has come a long way since her ground-breaking speech to the Tory party conference in 2010.'' This is not a valid supporting reference. Though it does back up the conjecture in the paragraphs on this talk page.

For information to those who were not following the story in 2010, Singh was desmissed from her post as a deputy head because of this speech. Reference 33 refers.

So lets look at the family lunch section. Family table service was standard practice in middle schools and KS3 in secondary schools in the 1970s and 1970 in state and private schools. Nothing new or notable there. It was done for three reasons-
 * cost it removed choice, and there was less waste,
 * control, you got the kids in and stationary and fewer kids walking around with hot food. :buildings- the kitchens were set up to do this type of catering and the dining halls could be smaller.

There are 4 references to this paragraph- one from a book written by the headteacher- and two from the schools website- personally I an happy to see the primary source website to support items of fact- but never to support opinions. By teaching gratitude, the school believes it is teaching kindness and happiness 10 31. Then to go on to price the product 32.

I also question most of the other 'neutral' statement, using an Ofsted judgement without mentioning that the school had just opened and the only students on site were KS3. We should also discuss whether plugging a two books is commercial promotion or within the spirit of wiki.

Also it is what that is ommitted. No mention of lack of PE facilities. No mention that Ms Bravermann is a governor and cabinet minister, no mention that it employs non-qualified staff and calls them teachers. No mention the influence the book and the school has had during free school negotiations. There is a lot wrong with this article. The school has always attracted the sobriquet 'contrversial'. This article needs to discuss all aspects of the school, in a balanced way.

I suggest the way forward is to look at Wp:SCHOOLS/AG, and to discuss here what needs to be reported- and the sections we want. In parallel, we prune the existing text. If references don't stand up to scrutiny- the prose goes. We should remember that we must make the article informative to AUS and US readers- the article will however focus on the educational theory issues so brush up your Vygotsky and pull out your R S Peters.ClemRutter (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict

 * - we seem to have had an edit conflict. However WP:RS and Conflict of interest means we cannot use any book published by the founder as a source. I have explained that in the edit summaries. You interest in it implies you possess a copy. We do have a page for the book which I have been looking at and it is a stub, have you time to work it up. ClemRutter (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Clem, RS and COI don't say that. There is no COI here unless the material was added by someone connected to the school, and there's no sign of that. And primary sources are allowed and are often the best sources to use, so long as there are independent secondary sources too, and there are. SarahSV (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable full stop. This is Wikipedia, not a press release. Instead of blindly hitting the undo link I suggest you read the concerns I expressed 3 days ago. There is plenty of material around that can supply the secondary source references that we require, without the need to muddy the field. I don't know where you got the idea that blanket reversions are a good idea or even quote BRD!. In your last edit you have just replaced a valid reference from a primary source, with one that  I had removed that doesn't cover the text! Every edit does need to be researched. When you see multiple references for a piece of text, you become suspicious that something is not right. Less is more. As you advised, bring your concerns here to the talk page first. I have laid out above some of the concerns I have about this article. I asked you if you could do some constructive editing to the Battle Hymn of the Tiger Teachers. We then can wikilink to sections of that page. When you actual read the text, and the long comments I had left in edit summaries you may find it easier to revert your revert. We have at least two long articles in this one- a description of the school - then a discussion of the teaching philosophy employed which is important as it is cited in many governing body meetings. This not the only free school to open, and be rated Outstanding in its opening Ofsted, which renders it exempt from inspection for 4 years. There are many in the Harris Federation group with similar claims. I'll leave it until Sunday before I edit here again so you have time to ponder. ClemRutter (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're calling acceptable. Please explain.I noticed comments from you on another page that suggest you have a strong POV against this type of school. It therefore concerns me that you're removing primary sources and other material. As I said above, primary sources are often the best type of source, for obvious reasons. If they're saying something contentious or UNDUE, independent secondary sources can be used instead or in addition. But if a school calls their lunch "family lunch", why change it? SarahSV (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable because this is Wikipedia, not a press release. You have asked a question. But if a school calls their lunch "family lunch", why change it? The answer is the same because this is Wikipedia, not a press release. We are writing the article in the terms of Wikipedia and not using the language used in the school. We are using a consensus encapsulated in WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG. Now why the school is so proud of their school meals system is of interest. When we have populated the missing sections particularly Academics or Curriculum in UK speak we need to discuss this in detail and reference it with the secondary sources we already have. At the moment doing so would be WP:UNDUE We are short of good examples. Look at Harris Academy St John's Wood for a work in progress, see the  Academics section, and  Media coverage. Wikipediawise you are wrong to suggest that a primary source is prefereable to a secondary source-- logically it seems correct to me too! Wikipedia assumes that anything self published is suspect: this is the framework that we work within. ClemRutter (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Clem, I helped to write some of the policies you're referring to, and I can assure you that primary sources are often the best sources. You are right that we need to heed UNDUE and self-interest, and so on. But there is no POV in a school calling their lunch "family lunch", and WikiProjects don't dictate content. Please suggest your changes slowly here to gain consensus. SarahSV (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sarah, it is a well known weakness of WP, any major change can be stopped by seeking consensus on article talk page- where the only viewers are the previous editors. There is no way that would work in this case, I am starting the clean up by checking each references. When I remove one I write a reason in the edit summary. I will remove a primary source if a strong enough secondary source is available. I will remove a primary source if it is supporting an opinion and not a fact.
 * I am grateful, and thank you if that was your work, for getting the section on when primary sources are acceptable into policy- it covers a lot of the work I am doing elsewhwere. I need space to edit so if you are insistent on not reverting back to my last edit- we can open a sandbox and I will continue to work there and when I cleaned it all up, you can transfer the uncontroversial bits over.
 * Our skills sets are entirely different- there is no way I could achieve 25 FA and GAs, and I see you haven't worked on a big [WP:WPSCHOOLS]] article. You will see from my contributionslist that I have been Destubbing schools. I have done all the schools in Norfolk, and many from elsewhere. In the process there is a lot of content creation, and infobox work. I have spent a month or so on doing all the schools in the Harris Federation which has a reputation for taking Ofsted basket cases and turning them into 'Outstanding' class schools. The best I can do is to get them to a 'B' and leave it to those with a gift for prose to take them further.
 * Bu You are bemused why I changed the heading 'Family Lunch'. Firstly its jargon, so unencyclopedic, and secondly it will probably be change several times more. I don't want to frighten the horses at this stage but there are several laws it breaks, no pack lunches allowed and pupils are charged. Charging in a state school is illegal. I need to locate the primary source for that. I remember back to the first school I taught in in 1975, being told that teachers had to eat separately as lunch was a statutory break and eating with kids would require payment and time off in lieu. I need to research if that has changed- and whether that applies to non-qualified teachers. Schools are a lot more than what the parent sees- or the teacher for that matter. We need to structure the article in such a way that we can accommodate that discussion. So I changed the title now to something less 'folksy'. As an aside, this form of table service as opposed to buffet service was used with Key Stage 3 kids in the 'Middle School' where I was a governor back before they were abolished in 1996. This not yet discussed on the article School meals. ClemRutter (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)