Talk:Lawrence Sheriff School

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

some of these 'facts' up for deletion are infact true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.242.140 (talk • contribs)

If you feel strongly about this, justifying your changes so that Wikipedians may make an informed choice whether to keep or revert them would be more sensible than repeatedly editing the article to reflect your point of view. -- Technostalgia 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are going to keep trying to edit it.. It'll just become all the Lawrence Sheriff kids who have Wikipedia accounts editing it next. The only way to do it is to put some information about the unhappiness about the proposed changes, and that might stop them vandalising it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamesmaster (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your well-written addition to the "Future plans" section. I'm concerned that it might violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but if your allegations of controversy are true, then maybe they should be documented. I'll leave it up to fellow Wikipedians to decide. -- Technostalgia 20:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the vertical tutoring system is becoming more widely acceoted, so some acknowledgement could be made of this in the main article A-Nottingham 12:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Opposition seems to be increasingly widespread- I go to form time about twice weekly now, and despise almost the entirety of my form. 212.139.237.165 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open letter to governors[edit]

After careful consideration, I decided to removed the entire "Future plans" section. Without in-depth knowledge of the school, I don't feel that I can do a good job of rewriting it in a neutral fashion. I don't believe such a controversial subject belongs on Wikipedia, at least not in the main Lawrence Sheriff School article, so I have created an article called "open letter to governors" which students may edit (intelligently, I hope) in order to express their points of view. In due course, this will be brought to the attention of the local press.

To expand on that, it would belong in Wikipedia, but only if a reliable source can be found for the criticism (such as a local newspaper article documenting the controversy, or - at a stretch - the minutes of a governors' meeting, or something like that). Our policies of no original research and not being a soapbox mean that editors cannot simply write their own criticsm of subjects into articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added evidence from a school newsletter from its website to support a previous edit of the 'future plans' section. --OranginaMan 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Baird[edit]

I have removed the paragraph concerning Mark Baird, the 2005/6 Head Boy, as I feel it is not particularly noteworthy and no source has been provided. -- Technostalgia 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"T-unit"[edit]

I have removed the following paragraph from the main article:

There has recently been much dispute as to the newly appointed head boys of the past two years. Even with much campaigning by original members of "T-unit", their pleas fell on deaf ears, much to the dismay of every other student in the sixth form.

I have no idea who or what the "T-unit" is. This paragraph would also need to be backed up by a reliable source in order to be suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. -- Technostalgia 11:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like mindful vandalism to me. Gamesmaster 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The T-Unit were a group of lads in the sixth form year of 2006 consisting primarily of Nick Davies, Daniel Gibson, Luke Reynolds, Sean Burgess, Daniel Ray and others.

Gamesmaster...This is far from mindful vandalism and merely a remenisent article refering back to core members of a well known and long standing group of boys who attended Lawrence Sheriff School. A group of boys, I should add, who brought a wealth of memories and experiences not only to the group of which they were in but to others around them. 217.10.159.2 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further vandalism[edit]

There has been a revert to the original vandalised article. I changed it back and posted a message on the user in question's talk page. Hopefully this was just an isolated incident. Gamesmaster 18:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: another anonymous user has added to the "Future Plans" section, giving a mature and sensible point: however, it is clearly not NPOV and violates the non-sandbox principle, so I have reverted it and explained my reasons to the user in question. Gamesmaster 17:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Old Laurentians[edit]

I think the Notable Old Laurentians section needs to be gone through, as there are some people listed there who are not particularly notable- for example I can't find any references to James Bryan online, so this may be a hoax. Any thoughts on this? A-Nottingham | Talk 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Bryans has gone on to do many wonderful things and should now be included in this list of notable Old Laurentians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.46.163 (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious editorial curation[edit]

I'm very concerned that some things have been removed from the LSS profile without document, proper reasoning or any consultation with others. In particular, a reference to students often being referred to as 'Griffins' has been removed without trace? Any shedding of light on such matters would be very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.255.35 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed in this edit at 17:22, 2 January 2012 by IP 87.112.172.145. The edit summary was "removal of untrue statement" thus as the statement was unsourced the removal was correct as there is doubt over its validity. Keith D (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Old Laurentians renaming[edit]

At present there is a discussion relating to the renaming of this category. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at this discussion page. Please note that the discussion is not a majority vote so contributions should be based on Wikipedia policies and independent sources. Cjc13 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent Changes" Final Sentence - Biased?[edit]

"However, the system has been noted as being a waste of money, particularly within the lower school as they already have a uniform by which they can be identified, but these people do not realise this is a requirement put in place by Ofsted"

Is it just me or does this sentence seem to be opinionated and have a tone which is not suitable for Wikipedia, it sounds almost as if a staff member has written it out of frustration or anger, certainly it is not of the high standard I have come to expect from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.124.8 (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is indeed not appropriate for Wikipedia, so I have removed it. Deli nk (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the School want to hide the truth?[edit]

In 2013 25% boys failed to reach the English Baccalaureate. FACT.

The School is under investigation from the LGO relating to an unlawful withdrawal of a school place and refusal to allow an appeal. FACT.

The school was directed by the DfE for failure or should I say refusal of Peter Kent to abide by his own complaints policy. FACT.

Parents have made reports to the police regarding bullying. FACT. A boy's arm was broken in an assault. FACT. The police have had to visit the school on numerous occasions. FACT.

Do not hide the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceSheriff (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Parent is angry after son not allowed a place in the School. Wikipedia is not for personal vendettas take your bile elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.212.138 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. These are facts. The Local Government Ombudsman found Lawrence Sheriff School at fault for refusing to abide by the schools admissions code and consider a school application after unlawfully withdrawing a school place. [1].

The school was directed by the DfE for refusing to abide by the school's own complaints policy. [2]

This was reported with errors in the Coventry Evening Telegraph. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.197.244 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative website is available www.LawrenceSheriff.co.uk [4] providing an interesting alternative view full of facts and links to actual documents the school wishes to hide.

This is honestly pathetic. As a former pupil of the school, the support for bullying was actually excellent. For you to also mention Mr. Hickling as aggressive is laughable. He is one of the nicest, and most caring blokes, when it comes to pupil welfare and education. I was in his form for 2 years, so I have first hand experience and not going by hearsay. Aggressive wagging of the finger? What even is that?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.74.213 (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.11plus.eu/image/LGO_LSS_14519_Decision.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.11plus.eu/image/CEM11plusDocs/DfE%20Letter%20to%20LSS.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/council-blunder-led-coventry-dad-6844420
  4. ^ www.LawrenceSheriff.co.uk

Can we include some facts about the school - evidence available.[edit]

The Local Government Ombudsman found Lawrence Sheriff School at fault for refusing to abide by the schools admissions code and consider a school application after unlawfully withdrawing a school place. [1].

The school was directed by the DfE for refusing to abide by the school's own complaints policy. [2]

This was reported with errors in the Coventry Evening Telegraph. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.197.244 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.11plus.eu/image/LGO_LSS_14519_Decision.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.11plus.eu/image/CEM11plusDocs/DfE%20Letter%20to%20LSS.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/council-blunder-led-coventry-dad-6844420

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Sheriff 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) 19:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lawrence_Sheriff_School&oldid=1200315299"