Talk:King's College School, Cambridge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Non Neutral Editing

There has been a lot of back and forth on the article. I tried to removed the puffery, the overly detailed, opinionated analysis (with terms like "worryingly" and "surprisingly" and "highly damning", and improve the flow of the article, which is very poor. These edits are reverted without comment. I will ask that future changes be discussed here first, as there is clearly no consensus being developed, just a back and forth that is not accomplishing anything. If we can't agree, we can then ask for a request for comment from other Wikipedia editors, which may help improve the article. Thank you for your cooperation. Seaphoto^Talk 20:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lengthy non-neutral presentation of a legal matter, coupled with an overly detailed description of one school year. I've tried discussing this, but no response on user or article talk page, simply a series of back and forth reversions. Seaphoto^Talk 16:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and non-encyclopedic detail

I have a number of concerns about the longer version of the article:

• First, from an encyclopedic view, too much weight is being given to the 2009 inspection. If we can distill that to one paragraph with footnotes it would be more than sufficient. The school has been around for many years, surely it is not defined by the series of events flowing from this incident, and yet the mass of detail gives a large amount of weight to it. In keeping with Wikipedia neutrality we try to give undue weight to any one incident. Of course, it is a balance and we are not here to whitewash an incident either.
• Second, there are a lot of subjective observations used in the writings; "worryingly", "surprisingly","staggering" rarely have a place in a dispassionate, neutral article, which is the goal of Wikipedia.
• Third, the latter half of the article with it's overly detailed accounting of the 2010 reads like a school newsletter for parents. I am not sure that any of this material belongs in an international encyclopedia. By way of contrast, take a look at King's College School, although the description of sports is arguably too detailed there as well.

I look forward to editor's opinions on these matters. Seaphoto^Talk 23:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I add my voice to Seaphoto's ? Seaphoto's minimal version of the page is balanced and acceptable.

However, kitty is endlessly reverting it to a long and unduly detailed listing of her case against the school. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, it just has no place in an online encyclopedia.ClassicsDoS (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The new version is briefer, but no real improvement. It still contains opionated phrases like "highly damaging", "total disregard", etc. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, if the School was as bad as kitty says, no parent would send their child there. In fact, the report that kitty alludes to begins by stating that the School is a happy place. It is questionable whether any of kitty's material belongs in an encyclopedia, but -- if it does -- one or two sentences would be ample.

Incidentally, I have no axe to grind, and am not connected with the School. But, I do take exception to users venting their own particular grievances on wikipedia. Wikipedia would be unreadable if everyone venting their frustrations and anger on it

I have reverted the new version back to Seaphotos ClassicsDoS (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've also reverted back to Seaphoto's version. These events have received national coverage so it would seem they probably do need to be in the article - but it's important that their inclusion be proportional to the total history of the school. An article that is more than two thirds about a single incident, as the version I reverted was, is horribly unbalanced when you consider the total length of the school's existence (which I see is minimally 40 years or so. I am not familiar with this particular school at all). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV additions

I've reverted back to the version that had consensus back in April. The version I reverted contained unsourced statements (the apology from the Provost to a particular family, the contents of the letter written by the Provost to parents, three pages of problems) and had a slanted feel eg. calling the letter "highly misleading", giving the name of the TES article title in the article text. I believe it probable that there were 3 pages of problems and that a certain family did receive an apology, the problem is that these things aren't recorded in the press. You're clearly upset with the school and the way they handled this but Wikipedia isn't the place for discussing the shortcomings of the school's management. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

The facts that are set out in the entry on King's College School have been independently verified and are based on documents that I have seen and have satisfied myself as to accuracy. This may reflect shortcomings that people don't like to read about, but prospective parents should be aware that the school has done everything possible to hide its failings. The headmaster has damaged the school and brought disgrace on an institution. If parents knew what happened at the school and the way in which governors have tried to airbrush history, they would look at the school very differently. Kitty

Thanks for responding, Kitty. There are two issues here. Firstly, the documents that you have seen and verified. I believe that you have indeed seen and verified these documents. The problem is that this is original research, which is against policy. Facts not included in published reliable sources are a big no-no, however real they are. This brings me on to the second problem. You appear to be trying to use the article to warn other parents of problems at the school. While I understand where you're coming from advocacy is also against policy. I think that you would do better to start a website or a blog that explains everything that has happened. That way you could put in as much depth and explanation as you want, give everybody the complete picture. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A more detailed explanation

Let me be more specific about the wording with which I have issues:
"In November 2009, the Provost wrote a highly misleading letter to all parents claiming that the unannounced inspection was due to a change in inspection regulations and that a few deficiencies were found. In fact, over three pages of failings were found. Furthermore, there have been no changes in inspection regime to allow unannounced, emergency inspections. The Department of Education, through the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) have always had the right to make unannounced inspections at schools where there is good reason for concern. "

1. "highly misleading letter" - I have a problem with the term "highly misleading". Highly misleading according to who? If Ofsted found the letter "highly misleading" we need to find a reference and then specify that, in Ofsted's opinion, the letter was "highly misleading". Without this it's just the opinion of an editor here which is to be avoided per WP:NPOV.

2. The contents of the letter. - We only have a reference for the "some deficiences"(the Cambridge City News reference), we don't have one for the school claiming this was due to changes in inspection regulations. Without a reference in a reliable source we shouldn't include this.

3. "In fact, over three pages of failings were found." - Is this in a reliable source? Or are we just going with what Kitty saw? If the latter then it can't stay. That's a failure of WP:OR.

4. Inspection regimes of the ISI - If we remove the inspection regulation changes statement this no longer needs to be included.

"The Times Educational Supplement in an article headlined "Choirboys' School tried to conceal protection lapses" reported that the inspection had found serious issues requiring correction, specifically in the recruitment of staff, and that the Inspection "described its anti-bullying, child protection and discipline policies as "inadequate in various areas". In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without bothering to pass on these important duties to someone else. The article was also critical of King's College for witholding information, being unreasonable and not carrying out proper internal reviews. The headmaster and the governors were criticized by the inspectors for not being sufficiently diligent. "

5. "The Times Educational Supplement in an article headlined "Choirboys' School tried to conceal protection lapses" reported that" - I'd like the TES article title removed from the text. I would prefer for us to convert the citation format of all the newspaper references into {{cite news}} format which displays like this:

Stephen Exley (19 November 2010). "Choirboys' school tried to 'conceal' protection lapses". Times Educational Supplement. Retrieved 4 July 2011.

That will give the readers more information up front and will provide the name of the article title on the page in a neutral manner. I am happy to do the conversion if everyone agrees.

6. "In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without bothering to pass on these important duties to someone else." - This statement is a little too negative for my liking, I'd prefer something like "In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without passing on these duties to a current member of staff." We're not here to pass judgement on what that teacher should have done which we currently do by implication by using the verb "bothering".

7. "The article was also critical of King's College for witholding information, being unreasonable and not carrying out proper internal reviews." - Based on what's in the TES article I'm happy with this but we need to put the citation at the end of the sentence. These are serious statements and our readers need to be able to verify them for themselves. Currently they can't because the reference we're giving them is to the Cambridge newspaper.

8. The section on the Provost's subsequent actions and apology to a particular set of parents. I believe these happened but we do not have sources for them happening. Without sources this paragraph shouldn't be here. It's unverifiable.

9. "Having been given six months to put its house in order," - Do we have a reference for the six month claim?

Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply to "A more detailed explanation"

1. "highly misleading letter" - I have a problem with the term "highly misleading". Highly misleading according to who? If Ofsted found the letter "highly misleading" we need to find a reference and then specify that, in Ofsted's opinion, the letter was "highly misleading". Without this it's just the opinion of an editor here which is to be avoided per WP:NPOV.

The Provost has admitted that his letter to all parents of 6 November 2009 was misleading. When you look at the claims made in his letter, it is very apparent how misleading they are. First he claimed that the unannounced inspection was due to a change in inspection process, which it wasn't. I have seen an email from the DCSF thanking the parents for bringing a matter to their attention.

2. The contents of the letter. - We only have a reference for the "some deficiences"(the Cambridge City News reference), we don't have one for the school claiming this was due to changes in inspection regulations. Without a reference in a reliable source we shouldn't include this.

This letter can be provided if you let me know how to load a pdf document.

3. "In fact, over three pages of failings were found." - Is this in a reliable source? Or are we just going with what Kitty saw? If the latter then it can't stay. That's a failure of WP:OR.

The soource of this, a DCFS letter, can be provided if you let me know how to load a pdf document.

4. Inspection regimes of the ISI - If we remove the inspection regulation changes statement this no longer needs to be included.

"The Times Educational Supplement in an article headlined "Choirboys' School tried to conceal protection lapses" reported that the inspection had found serious issues requiring correction, specifically in the recruitment of staff, and that the Inspection "described its anti-bullying, child protection and discipline policies as "inadequate in various areas". In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without bothering to pass on these important duties to someone else. The article was also critical of King's College for witholding information, being unreasonable and not carrying out proper internal reviews. The headmaster and the governors were criticized by the inspectors for not being sufficiently diligent. "

5. "The Times Educational Supplement in an article headlined "Choirboys' School tried to conceal protection lapses" reported that" - I'd like the TES article title removed from the text. I would prefer for us to convert the citation format of all the newspaper references into {{cite news}} format which displays like this:

Stephen Exley (19 November 2010). "Choirboys' school tried to 'conceal' protection lapses". Times Educational Supplement. Retrieved 4 July 2011.

That will give the readers more information up front and will provide the name of the article title on the page in a neutral manner. I am happy to do the conversion if everyone agrees.

I'm happy with this.

6. "In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without bothering to pass on these important duties to someone else." - This statement is a little too negative for my liking, I'd prefer something like "In particular, the school's child protection officer had left the school without passing on these duties to a current member of staff." We're not here to pass judgement on what that teacher should have done which we currently do by implication by using the verb "bothering".

We'll that's what happened. It was negligent but not surprising.

7. "The article was also critical of King's College for witholding information, being unreasonable and not carrying out proper internal reviews." - Based on what's in the TES article I'm happy with this but we need to put the citation at the end of the sentence. These are serious statements and our readers need to be able to verify them for themselves. Currently they can't because the reference we're giving them is to the Cambridge newspaper.

That's fine - please go ahead and make the changes.

8. The section on the Provost's subsequent actions and apology to a particular set of parents. I believe these happened but we do not have sources for them happening. Without sources this paragraph shouldn't be here. It's unverifiable.

I have seen many letters in which the Provost has apologised for the suffering caused to the family. There is a child welfare issue here, as the children who suffered because of the actions of the headmaster, were never told about what happened in order to protect them. If the letter is published, it will reveal their identity. I am happy to provide the letter in confidence to show good faith, but it can't be published.

9. "Having been given six months to put its house in order," - Do we have a reference for the six month claim?

Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is because the failed inspection took place mid September 2009 and the re-inspection took place in Feb/March 2010. The re-inspection is on the King's website.

Thanks, Kitty. Based on your response to 5, I have converted the references into the {{cite news}} format. I've additionally pulled the TES article title out of the text. I've also added the reference to the end of the sentence as I suggested in 7. I'm going to try and skim through the rest just to make sure we've got good references in place for all the other statements too. Would you be happy for me to make the wording change I suggested in 6? I honestly think that the facts alone (the teacher left and didn't pass on the responsbility and the school didn't check up on it) would make any parent stop short. Weighted phraseology really isn't necessary. The facts are damning enough.

The problem that I see with many of the other points I raised is that a lot of the statements that you would prefer to be in the article are based on primary sources. It's normally best to avoid primary sources when writing articles (see WP:PRIMARY). The primary written sources in this case are the November letter, the DCFS letter and the apology letter(s). What the Provost has said (verbally) to you or others that you know is hearsay in this context and definitely can't be added or used to back up whats being added. Note that I'm not accusing you or anyone else of lying, I'm simply saying it isn't verifiable to the average reader. The letters are slightly different. My feeling is (with the possible exception of the one from the DCFS) they do not fall under the "reliably published" section of WP:PRIMARY, which means that they can't be used, but I think I will ask for another opinion from someone more experienced here than I am. I'm going to post at WP:RSN. You (and Tatnall) are welcome to contribute there too. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your additional comments and I appreciate the trouble you have gone to obtain a balance. I would be happy for a independent Wikipedia editor contact the parents who have the source documents so that they can be properly verified. The alternative is for them to be redacted and stored on the webpage. I'm not sure how to do that, so if you can help that would be appreciated. If that overcomes the problem you have raised, that would be excellent. Kitty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitty101423 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm very glad indeed to see a constructive / useful process beginning to come together here.

At a purely human level, it's been very unfortunate that Kitty101423 has been having such a hard time trying to make good-faith contributions - as a constructive response to what must have been an almost devastating experience with her children's education. And - a more-Wikicentered thought - readers are quite likely to visit us when considering sending children to this school . . if there's any way we can help such readers be alerted to the governance and child-protection issues there we will be doing good work.

In terms of the way Wikipedia operates, it's disturbing that we have allowed what I presume to be Kings College School's Information-&-Communications Technology department to (1) market the school via Wikipedia, and (2) delete information about this scandal . . and then dumped long and hard on Kitty for comparatively technical weaknesses in handling sources - and of course for sounding rather heavily involved!!!

As a fellow Brit, and former private- ("public"-)school boy now involved on the edge of care work (in hostels for homeless people), I may be able to usefully highlight some aspects . .

• the English tradition is that the management of private schools is to be left to the parents who pay for them . . Government involvement in this area is recent, reluctant and in response to problems and a real need . . it is very striking that the Independent Schools Inspectorate made such strong criticisms
• this case has led to a decision by the Information Commissioner which is both politically courageous and legally groundbreaking (not to mention frankly surprising) . .
  • the Charity Commission, for example, backed off from tackling the private schools - even under Labour, and despite clear support from public opinion . .
  • the Information Commissioner has far less support for both Data-Protection and Freedom-of-Information aspects of his remit, yet chose to get involved here - and had to use an interesting combination of fact and law to reach his judgement - because, presumably, he considered that the school's efforts to bury the case were too likely to succeed and so render the Government's safeguarding/inspection arrangements ineffective . .
  • note also that Wikipedia has unknowingly been drawn in to this effort, by (apparently) allowing the School's ICT-department to pitch marketing material in the article and to revert adverse edits without challenge
• note that this school has children has young as 4! - the terms "prep" and "pre-prep" have different meanings in England (? Britain generally) than in the US
• this is a school which provides a church choir for the chapel of a College at Cambridge University (one of England's two Ancient Universities) . . the Cambridge connection obviously locates this as an Establishment scandal; the church connection also links it to the question of child-protection in the Church . . it's not central to the issue of Church paedophilia (because no sexual aspect of the abuse is reported in this case, and because Church paedophilia is mainly seen as involving the Catholic Church, whereas Kings College chapel is of course Church of England) - but that issue makes child protection a very very high-profile aspect of church governance: and this is a scandal about governance as much as anything
• safeguarding, and care standards, are a big issue in England with both the NHS and care homes . . and inspection of schools is a bit of a problem-area too, with the slow slide of school standards over the last twenty years or so!
• the English ruling-class habit of understatement is in play here . . the fact that "Questions have been asked in the House" (of Commons) speaks (shouts, actually) for itself: "the medium is the message", the fact that the dialog is occurring is the point . . both Questions and the response they receive (email in this case) will normally be phrased on the basis that the wording should be muted - forceful words within the dialog would only distract / detract from the key fact that the dialog is occurring. (Incidentally, it should be possible to reference the Question, if not the email, in Hansard.)
• much of Kitty101423's difficulty with sources is because - remember this! - there's no principle of "Freedom of Speech" in English law!
  • the very distinctive English law and culture on defamation / libel sets the tone for media reporting - ie for the written sources available for anyone to cite as references. There are several scandals of national importance where it has been said after the event that English libel law prevented journalists from timely reporting of early indications. (The example that comes to mind is the Maxwell pension-plundering disaster at Mirror Group Newspapers.) This merges with the Establishment hush-hush culture which reinforces it - for example, it was when a newspaper-proprietor suppressed his own paper's scoop reporting Lord Boothby's doings in 1960s London that the Kray Twins sensed themselves as invulnerable and suddenly became far more blatant in their criminality. Given that explicit reporting is so hampered, journalism works in the on the basis that readers must interpret what they see
  • English law on contempt of court is also very strong. (The English courts are by tradition the King's Courts, which displaced local Manor Courts etc in the Middle Ages. In the US this tradition has been reversed, with courts far more democratic - law officers are often locally elected!) So, for example, where a murder is being reported after a body bearing stab wounds has been found in a shallow roadside grave, English and British news media will speak/write of an "alleged" attack - not even an "apparent" attack - even after the Police have identified and charged a defendant - because it is / will be for the Courts to determine whether the wounds were self-inflicted / accidental / etc, whether they are in fact stab wounds, whether these caused the death, etc. (The same phrasing will be used even after conviction if there's an appeal pending!) The English Courts do not welcome third-parties expressing views about legal cases - even by implication! A couple of tabloids have been charged for splashing a teacher as a possible suspect in a recent sex murder
  • copyright has also always worked rather differently in England . . until recently, an author had to take certain steps to retain copyright of anything commercially published; other than that, copyright operated more to protect the writer from being misquoted than anything else . . Wikipedia's policy seems to rule out quoting Government letters, reports etc at all, whereas British government practice is based on the idea that (accurate) republication of documents published by the Government is to be encouraged . . it may be possible to locate an explicit declaration by the British Government covering this point (there is such a declaration relating to publishing Acts of Parliament): but it may well not; and, either way, Kitty deserves support and help with the associated difficulties in navigating Wikipolicy
• these things don't make it OK for a contributor to disregard Wikipedia rules about "Original Research" - but is sure as hell is good reason for other contributors to be supportive with someone struggling with the resulting problems, and I'm glad it's beginning to happen!

SquisherDa (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Kitty abandoned any attempts to discuss the material she wants to add about year ago. As the blocking administrator said, she is welcome to return to this article if only she can adopt a less combative approach. I am happy to give her whatever help I can if only she'd ask for it and I certainly don't wish the article to conceal information about the inspection. My concerns are:

1. I suspect the information Kitty is adding isn't so much unsourced as unsourcable. Wikipedia is supposed to be a compendium of what all the best publications have said about a particular topic. If the only evidence for something is a letter in Kitty's desk, it doesn't belong here.

2. It's opinionated in tone. This doesn't help her cause: to most people it looks like a rant and they will be instinctively suspicious of what it says.

3. There was indeed an account editing Wikipedia over a year ago that appeared to have a conflict of interest. We have no way of proving it was the school, though it almost certainly was. That account engaged in an edit war with Kitty, who also has a clear conflict of interest. It made a very small number of edits and had no lasting effect on the article.

4. There is a risk that that the story be given too much weight. Most of the editors involved, including me, seem to be British. We know what a prep school is and we are capable of judging the significance of this case. Wikipedia reflects and summarises reliable published sources on a subject and the failed inspection in 2009 is, to put it mildly, not very prominent in them. Furthermore, the Information Commissioner didn't make a "courageous" decision to "intervene", nor would he be allowed to (the quality of boarding schools does not come within his remit); he made a finding of fact that the school is a public, rather than a private, organisation for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. Nor is it the job of the Charities Commission to "tackle" private schools. There were 73 other, similar failed private school inspections in 2009. Some were more widely reported and in most cases the Inspectorate was ridiculed. I don't agree that this event is as revolutionary as you say. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for your response, Lo2u . . I'm a newcomer, of course - and need to navigate my way through the Tutorial stuff on references before I try to help hands-on! . . I hadn't realised Kitty was seen as rejecting efforts at help: the impression I had formed was more of editors being alienated by her style, and intervening to criticise her work - but stopping short of showing how she could start to comply with WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc. And my suspicion is that us Brits are finding Wikipolicies originating in the US less than helpful in handling sources purposefully where they relate to the British Establishment. I'll try to get back with more detailed thoughts when I can . .

On your numbered points, meanwhile . .

(1: unsourceable?) - the heart of the problem? (ie, is it problems here that are making Kitty so frustrated, and thus so strident?)

(2: rant) - well, yes! Fixable? (see (1) maybe?) - if not, there's no way forward!

(3: ?marketing) - it was perhaps the sense that Kitty was being blamed for the edit war that led me to feel she perhaps wasn't getting the support she should. (In warring with that editor she was on our side - even if she wasn't quoting the right Wikipolicies etc!) So, no lasting effect on the article - but perhaps (see (2)?) rather severe post-combat stress problems for the surviving combatant!

(4: weight) - yes: and of course this is an aspect of the ranting problem . . but it seems to me that the lack of prominence is the English Establishment's closed style of operation, not any lack of importance. (Only the English would publish the later, anodyne, pre-notified inspection report, and bury the one that had teeth?) To me it's plain there's been a flurry of belated activity (and as I recall the sources do seem to link the Provost's resignation to the mishandling of the original failed inspection?). The fact that this activity is so hard to track, in quotable sources, is (in my mind) the heart of the difficulty that (I'm assuming: see (1) again) is causing Kitty such frustration (and horror, that something like this narrative of victimhood can play out with no sign of it in public). Regarding weight: I see Kitty's story more in terms of shock and scandal than of revolution, but you're evidently right that we have different thoughts on its importance . . judgements about "notoriety" etc are always going to be subjective, and discussion a bit intractable / indecisive as a result . . so it must be a mistake to engage at length with all the different aspects that different contributors take into account (and discussion about the importance of an article doesn't appear within the article itself - or even in its talk page, usually) . . but it may be helpful to point out briefly that I think the sources show that the Information Commissioner's decision is seen as surprising; and I see it as courageous for the Commissioner to go up against a Cambridge College over a story which the College sees as "nothing to do with us" - given the amount of opposition there is at present to the Commissioner's role generally(not least Tony Blair's very strong comment about the FoI Act, in his memoirs). Charities Commission: here I'm puzzled, that you don't seem to see the Commission's history over the last ten years as dominated by the private-schools narrative, with the failed Charities Bill, Susie Leather's appointment etc? What else do you think its job was??

SquisherDa (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding Kitty's behaviour, my understanding is that a discussion in this thread didn't go the way s/he would have liked so s/he left it and then waited four months before quietly reintroducing the very material that had originally been rejected by a large number of editors. The editor has ignored notes from a number of different editors, including your own very amicable approaches. It looks to me like a clear attempt to circumvent the discussion process and corresponds almost exactly with the sort of behaviour described at WP:DE. On your second point, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH are there simply to prevent Wikipedia being used for purposes it wasn't intended for: don't editorialise; don't present your opinions as facts; don't proselytise; don't introduce conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web hosting service. I have read your comments but I'm still not sure why these criteria, which have been developed as much by British as by American editors, should be particularly difficult to fulfill when talking about British private schools or how Kitty's behaviour might be seen as anything but a severe violation. Regarding weight: we may have to differ on this. The failed inspection of King's Prep School wasn't widely reported because it wasn't notable. "Importance" on Wikipedia is decided according to WP:NOTABILITY criteria. The school briefly tried to suppress information and did so in a clumsy and transparent way. Hardly an establishment conspiracy. The failings weren't particularly significant either: basically the school allowed support staff with up to date CRB checks to work for short periods before a new CRB check had been received; one of three "named people" was also no longer employed at the school. The chances are, the media just didn't find it very interesting. Whatever Suzi Leather may believe her job is, the job of the Charities Commission, as I understand it, is to enforce legislation that requires charities to fulfill the purposes of their charter and the requirements of relevant legislation and to do so on the basis of fact. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, ta for thoughts - and for the pointers to (eg & esp) WP:DE (and yes, Kitty101423's edit-history is a highly recognisable match to the profile there!!) But her 5-July responses (above) to Ka Faraq Gatri's contribution at the head of this section are a very encouraging contrast. I presume the thing I should try and do (but Not This Week!) is work up a sensible and reasonably brief section for the article using whatever sound sources are identifiable - and in fact I see Kitty's ultimate potential role more in terms of identifying / locating citable sources than as an editor (because WP:NPOV may be asking too much).

On weight etc, I don't actually think the original failed inspection is a big big notability thing . . but I think the school's passivity / lateness in recognising the significance of the complaints that prompted it, combined with its assertiveness / eagerness in closing ranks / trying to bury the story, amounts to a red light as regards governance there: and the problem of private-school governance around safeguarding (esp re sexual abuse, though) seems (this is anecdotal) to be still important / widespread. (Of course, a corresponding weakness in Local-Authority arrangements for Looked-After Children is coming under the spotlight at the moment too.)

(It's because I see the importance of all this in terms of governance as much as of safeguarding (or a family's experience of school bullying) that the English Establishment's closed-government tradition looms so large for me in connection with the story. That, in turn, is why the differences from US political culture seem to me likely to be relevant).

As regards the Charity Commission, I suspect you're right, that its remit is fact-based enforcement rather than policy-based direction - now, under this Government! - and this is what the 2011 U-turn was all about. Different ideas and expectations applied under Labour, though. (There were allkindsa policy-level problems receiving attention at that time - Trustees claiming expenses for attending meetings vs the principle that Trustees must not benefit from the Charity's funds, for one; far more important: the ancient principle that a charity's Trustees are insurers for its assets and must protect them from risk, vs the modern idea that risk and reward must always be in balance - rather than keeping risk to nil - vs the issue of whether the point of any insurance would be to protect those Trustees, so the premiums would be for the Trustees' benefit, and so back again to clashes with the benefit-from-funds principle.) We need an article on the Charities Bill - I don't even know whether that was drafted before or after Suzi (ta for sp.!) Leather's 2006 appointment!

SquisherDa (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(reduce indent)Apologies for a slow reply. Busy week. I agree, Kitty's contribution hasn't been all bad. The information that Kitty has added is worthy of mention and wouldn't otherwise have appeared. Nevertheless this is what I can gather of the history of this account from various sources: s/he had a quarrel with a teacher; at first the headmaster supported the complaints, but they became more insistent and unreasonable; eventually the relationship between school and parents became so cold that the children were withdrawn. Kitty then contacted a Government agency to complain about the headmaster and staff, which resulted in the inspection. The school failed but I don't know if this was on grounds Kitty had raised. Kitty began a campaign against the school, which included editing the Wikipedia article, contacting newspapers and (following the Information Commissioner's ruling) making dozens of Freedom of Information requests, mainly aimed at persuing a vendetta against one member of staff. The Information Commissioner eventually ruled that these were "vexatious", "repetitive", "harassing" and "obsessive". The school reacted to the Wikipedia article in exactly the way you or I would react if we encountered a one-sided rant about us on Wikipedia. If it had made a complaint through the proper channels, the potentially libellous information would have been removed by Wikipedia anyway. Apart from this, I'm not aware of any attempts to "bury" information, though I accept I could have missed something. Regarding the failed inspection, it came in 2009 after an enormous number of regulations were brought in from dozens of sources in a very short space of time. Well resourced LEAs struggled to keep pace and it was far more challenging for the small clerical staff of a typical prep school. 74 private schools failed inspections that year, twice as many as in any other year; other failed schools like Shrewsbury School receive nothing like the treatment of King's. I think it would be a mistake to dwell too much on the behaviour of the school, which undoubtedly made mistakes but might well regard itself as a victim. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, thanks. The picture you're seeing is very consistently a disruptive editor who is disrupting not (wholly) through lack of awareness of policies but (primarily) because her intention is unWikipedic. This is the reverse of the conclusion I had (provisionally?!) jumped to . . and I'm very much aware that you've been tracking this story, and active with it, for a great deal longer than me!

For me, Kitty101423's story is partly something I seem to have a head of steam about for reasons that are not clear (not clear to me, that is); and partly it's functioning as a case-study within the process of learning my way in as a newbie (and partly a case-study on the specific issues it raises, and illustrates the operation of: unBite, and WP:NPOV + WP:CoI etc, and of course WP:RS etc .. I wonder as well whether I'm onto something about intercultural (US/UK) differences making for difficulties in applying WP:RS, WP:COPYOTHERS etc) . . my plan at present is to look at a bit more of the Tutorial and get a grasp of how to cite sources (and of what sources are acceptable) - so that if (!) appropriate I'll be able to contribute more productively (ie actually propose some edits!) - and then come back. See you then (meanwhile feel free to observe how I'm getting along!!); and thanks again for your support / advice meanwhile!

SquisherDa SquisherDa (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC) (& 10:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

Changes to this article

I have attempted to verify each statement in the school inspection (which was still excessively long) section and am removing much of it. 1. I haven't been able to verify that the complaint was specifically about the HM and I don't think it adds much. 2. Criticisms about internal reviews and witholding information actually relate to the FOI request rather than to the inspection per se. 3. "not being specifically diligent" is vague and appears to duplicate some of the more specific information. 4. "The Provost of King's College stepped down as Chair of Governors on April 1, 2011" this happened two years after the failed inpection and seems to have been unrelated. A case of WP:SYNTH. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The emergency unannounced inspection inspection in 2009 was not due to any complain against any individual, as the ISI refuses (quite understandably) to get involved with individual complaints focusing only on compliance with the regulations, which it failed badly. It was so bad in fact that the Dept of Education issued letter in which it referred to serious regulatory failings and a Statutory Notice was served on the school. In addition, the school tried to cover up the seriousness of the failings when the Provost wrote a misleading letter to all parents - which he has admitted to in writing to a parent. In addition, the Information Commissioner noted that documents that the College/ School claimed did not exist, suddenly appeared during the Commissioner's investigation.

The statements made by Kitty in the original wording (that has now been removed) have been independently verified and are all sourceable. It is a great shame that people without the facts have decided to remove factually based statements. A separate publication will be issued later this year setting out all the facts that appeared on the Wikipedia site and a number of additional statements

I hope his helps. I'm sorry if I have come across as not interested in a discussion - which I am - this wasn't my intention

Kind regards

Kitty.

You must see that the tone of the article went far beyond simply presenting facts. It was fairly obvious that what was presented was the opinions of an angry parent. Also, it's precisely statments like "It was so bad..." that must be avoided. If you would like to continue to edit the article, you have only to give guarantees that you will abide by Wikipedia policies, particularly in discussing your material first and in relation to WP:BLP. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 11:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)