Talk:King Henry VIII School, Coventry

Anonymous addition reverted as it was without context:

R.I.P Mike Reed - Former 6th form student Infilms 15:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This article ought really to be called "King Henry VIII School, Coventry" - to distinguish it from King Henry VIII School, Abergavenny, and so that a search for "King Henry VIII School, Coventry", which is what most people will be searching for, gives a 100% result.

Agreed. As this notice had been up on this talk page for some time without comment to the contrary I moved the page Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 23:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Infamous former teachers?????

This refers to an incident 10 years ago relating to offences committed by 2 teachers up to 30 years ago.
The website used doesn't seem exactly a top newspaper and doesn't cover all the detail specified.
I intend to shorten it to one sentence, leaving the reference and changing the title to controversies.
JRPG (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes please. Many thanks. King Henry VIII School (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is now an even older story. It is no longer timely and I propose that it is removed. Dskjt (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Removed. Dskjt (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please remove, thank you. King Henry VIII School (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Very convenient. Right to be forgotten eh? Should we forget about old Rolf and Jimmy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.135.3.115 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Headmasters

I don't have access to any relevant reference materials but I wonder if errors have crept into the dates for the headmasters listed in this article. As I recall, Rhidian James was Headmaster for the entire period when I was a pupil (1980-1985) and yet the current dates show his period of office starting in 1992 Hugh Mason (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

He was deputy head in that period when Roy Cooke was director of Coventry School and Henry's and Bablake had a deputy head each.

The website

FACT

"..value of each individual scholarship ranges between 10% and 17% of annual fees" http://www.kinghenrys.co.uk/?page_id=497

The figure of on the site is for bursaries and not scholarships and is misleading.

The school refuses to provide scores of exams and pass marks. Feb 2011 from Amanda Skinner:

Copy of Third party email:

Unfortunately, the school’s policy will not allow me to disclose candidates’ individual scores, or in fact any information relating to the exam itself. I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Amanda Skinner

Feel free to verify

BURSARY

Bob Jones scores 80% in the exam. Parents unemployed. 90% bursary, so can attend school if parenst pay 10%. They agree and Bob takes up a place.

John Smith scores 85% in the exam. Parents earn £200K, no bursary as deemed to earn too much. Parents refuse to pay more than 10%, on the grounds other children with lower scores get 90% bursary. Fair comment. John Smith cannot take up place.

We have a situation that a child with a lower score takes up a place and a child with a higher score cannot.

Is this fair? The highest scores should get the highest discount, be it via scholarship or bursary.

The school uses biometrics. Parents object.

---

Original Message -----

From: Jason Slack Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 1:28 PM Subject: School Meals

Dear Mr Brown

I am writing further to your recent email regarding the use of a scanner to identfy children who are paying for school meals.

The Coventry School Foundation forms the governing body that looks after King Henry VIII School and as such the implementation of the cash free system within our school is common to all schools within the Foundation. I know that the Coventry School Foundation took very careful advice before the system was installed last year. The safety and well being of our pupils is clearly extremely important.

Our intentions to use the data associated with the finger print are for the purposes of an efficient and secure method of payment for school dinners and are not used for any other means. We would never wittingly expose our pupils to any form of possible data abuse and certainly it is to the mutual benefit of the School and our students that we do not jeopardise their futures.

I have raised your concerns with the Foundation Office. It is certainly not our intention to raise fears of this sort or act in any way that is not in our pupils’ best interests.

Yours sincerely,

J Slack Headmaster

STOP DELETING FACTS THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.154.222 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• None of the above satisfies Wikipedia's policies for sources, per WP:RELIABLE, and it really doesn't appear to belong here, either. Advocacy, anyone? 99.12.242.7 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you accept the schools' own website? http://www.kinghenrys.co.uk/?page_id=497

The value of each individual scholarship ranges between 10% and 17%? If so, why do you keep deleting? This is vandalism.

Do you accept that the figure of 90% is misleading as it is only for bursaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.154.222 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording in the article mentioned both scholarships and bursaries - your source for the smaller figure also validates the higher so if it justifies your claim it also justifies the previous claim. The emails you posted prove nothing - I could produce similar that looked just as authentic and would be just as worthless as a reference. We need independent WP:reliable sources for contentious claims. Your Bursary example seems to misunderstand what a bursary is and is at odds with the claim about the school - not unreasonably - not disclosing entrance exam results publicly as without knowing the result how would any of this be knowable? noq (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that bursaries are for more able students and not less able students? Where is the proof? Provide it, or remove the words "more able".

Published sources required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.142.38 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please take the time to read Wikipedia's policies before attempting to use it to air grievances. The school's website is of limited reliability--published objective sources are always preferred. If none of this can be reliably sourced, it's probably not important enough to merit inclusion. Letters from employees are not acceptable sources...nor is the discontent of students or their families a valid motive. Again, please read policies, esp. WP:SOAPBOXING, and refrain from misusing accusations of vandalism. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a great deal of unsourced content in the article. Are we certain that the inclusion of the school song doesn't constitute copyright violation? Depends on when it was written. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I challenge you to the same rules. Provide evidence of the 90% buraries form a source other than the school website, else delete it. Provide evidence of fees. Provide evidence people travel from distances. Provide evidence of house names etc. It's all nonsense. You know scholarships are not any more than 17%, but want to hide it and mislead people by the 90% claim which is only bursaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.142.38 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

the majority of whom pay full fees of £9,168 per year,[1] 

The source is the website. How can this be accepted if the same source states "The value of each individual scholarship ranges between 10% and 17%"?

Delete the £9168 claim. Or allow the edit "The value of each individual scholarship ranges between only 10% and 17%"?

as well as bursaries awarded for able students from less well off backgrounds --- evidence required for this claim of able students

- this ranges from 10% to 90%. Evidence required.

Some pupils commute daily from as far as Northampton (30 miles away), Evidence required.

Pot calling the kettle black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.142.38 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't challenge me to anything, and spare the adages about pots and kettles--I couldn't give a rodent's backside about this either way, and said above that if none of this is sourced then it doesn't belong. What this looks like to this objective party is an edit war over trivia by two anonymous IPs. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, 2.24.142.38 has not had an edit history today that suggests objectivity [1]. Lots of agendas in the blustering wind today. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Then delete every single item that is not sourced. I suggest you haven't got the guts. You are such a hypocrite. You allow a statement on fees quoted from the website then dispute the scholarship rates from the same website. There is no evidence of of the bursary values and you don't delete it.

It looks like we need an external person to settle the edits to the page. You clearly are not competent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.142.38 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we stop calling people names? Ironic that this is the talk page of a school...anyway. Not every word in every article needs a source, no need to delete the whole article. The point is that anything that is 'challenged or likely to be challenged' should be supported by a reliable, inline citation. If a source appears to contradict itself, that's usually a pretty big sign of unreliability. Mato (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, your last edit read "between only 10% and 17%", which is a very obvious statement of your point of view - there's no "only" in the source. Mato (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That all being said (I've struck part of my original comment), it does seem clear from the page what the percentages are - the question is does that kind of detail belong here? Mato (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I will join the discussion...

Do you accept 10% to 17% is accurate? If so, add it? It seems you want to mislead by the higher bursary figures.

What is wrong with the word only? It is accurate. It is "only" 10% to 17%. It is no more and no less. It is pefectly correct English. To object to "only" is petty. The figures are with 90% range is misleading. It implies this holds for scholarships, which is clalry false. Yet,you object to the clarification and correct date being published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrypicker999 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the source for the bursary? State it or remove the figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrypicker999 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly - "Only" does not mean "no more no less". It means "no more". Hence why "only 99%" would be paradoxical, for example.

Secondly - could you please state (for transparency), Cherrypicker999, if you have previously been involved in this discussion and/or edited this article or talk page in the last 24hours under a different username and/or IP address. If this were found to be true and you denied it at this stage, you would be facing an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia. Forgive me for being accusatory, but I am. Mato (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. I just registered so could not have edited under a different username. I have one username. I am new to this and not sure if I should use edit talk or new section. Feel free to advice. I know the different people who edited the page. I have reviewed the evidence and it is clear and hence became involved. For some reason you appear to want to protetct the page from facts you do not like. Why not stick to the topic. Don't you agree that the percentages quotes are not clear and could be construed to mean up tp 90% for scholarships, when it clearly is no more than 17%? Additionally, there is no verifiable data for the bursary figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrypicker999 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just registering does not preclude you from either editing anonymously or under a different name. The style of your edits does seem similar to other edits from anonymous editors. What evidence have you reviewed? The statements about 10-90 are from the same source as the 10-19 and the article wording did make it clear that this included bursaries as well as scholarships - so no misleading. The statement I removed that no 100% bursaries were awarded is implicit in the previous sentence listing 90 as the upper limit so need to stress that. The page protection prevented anonymous and new editors from joining an obviously contentious edit war for a short while - not a permanent block. noq (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A strong commitment to academic learning is reflected in very good examination results

"A strong commitment to academic learning is reflected in very good examination results."

This is opinion. Not fact. It is self promotion. This needs to be removed. "good examination results" is clearly opinion. KVIII is nowhere near the top of the league tables. Lawrence Sheriff school was top at GCSEs. verifiable from BBC website.

Your rules, not mine! Cherrypicker999 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some pupils commute daily from as far as Northampton (30 miles away),

Where is the evidence? We need a verifiable source. It can provide the impression the school is so popular people travel 30 miles. It needs to be removed in the absenc of the verifiable source.

Your rules again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrypicker999 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Famous Old Coventrians

This section has no verfiable sources. I challenge every entry. Either provide sources or remove the names. Cherrypicker999 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Contact the local press

Best option is to contact the local press. Attempts to block information about KHVIII on wiki. Page protected. Let them investigate!

Funny how instead of adding the 17% figure, you now remove the 90% figure. Surely both figures would be useful. Since 10 to 17% is paltry, you decide to remove both. The page needs an independent person to review the data.

Would you care to disclose your relationship with the school, and why you think only you can decide which facts may be posted on the page and why you think certain data needs sources, whilst others do not, even if challenged?

Cherrypicker999 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no personal agenda here - I arrived here as part of my work at WP:WikiProject Schools, never edited this article before today and may decide never to do so again. Just consider the option, (before blanket removal of data), of helping find citations for some of the things you suggest removing - it's generally more constructive than removing everything. Clear bias should obviously be removed but, for example with the list of alumni, there are probably citations out there to back up at least some of those entries. Mato (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Cherrypicker999 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Well, how do you justify removed the fact that KHVIII accept that scholarships are only 10-17%? How do you justify keeping.... good exam results, without facts? Past league tables show 0% for maths (they take iCGSE Maths) - no verifiable source of good results. This is clear bias. How do you justify the fees being stated from the school website when the claim is the website may be inaccurate? This is comical. Facts are supressed. The page is a joke. Blanket removal is the only option if simple data is questioned, that the school publishes itself via its own website. Cherrypicker999 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The schools have mutual arrangements such as a common entrance examination

Is this verified. On enquiry, with Bablake, they refused to confirm the same exam, only that the exam was on the same day and students could not sit both exams.

This needs a verifiable source or removed. Cherrypicker999 (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)