Talk:Harton Academy

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harton Technology College. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

I have again reverted edits that do not adhere to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style in terms of bolding, titles and capitalisation; which added unsourced information and did not read neutral; and which added inspection judgement information to the lead. As judgements change over time, it is not appropriate for them to be included in the lead; they should have their own section. Opening a discussion here. Tacyarg (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

It is very important that parents at Harton Academy can gain vital access to appropriate information about the organisation.

Ofsted reports are a key source of information, and provide crucial insight into what a school is like. Displaying them in the main body of the wiki page allows parents and carers, and the wider community to clearly and easily access this.

Key points surrounding Headteacher appointments should also remain visible to visitors of the Harton Academy wiki page. Members of the community should be able to gain access into who was appointed and when.

The main body page of the Harton wiki has always contained relevant, accurate and informative information. This w always be the case.

Thank you Jonmckenziex (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to review schools or to help schools enroll students. This isn't a directory. If you have a WP:COI it is mandatory that you disclose it. Your edits are promotional and don't follow the manual of style especially WP:LEDE. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonmckenziex has now been clear that they have no CoI. However, I have reverted their edit again as inspection judgements should not go in the lead, should not be bolded, and titles should not be used. I am also going to add back in the referenced info about the school's history that the same editor removed. Please can we discuss here if necessary? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user is now edit warring on reinserting the Ofsted judgment back into the lead.

Jonmckenziex, you have been told several times that Wikipedia policy does not allow for Ofsted judgments to be placed in the lead section (regardless of whether or not an editor has a COI ). You are now engaging in a WP:EDITWAR, and one where you are very obviously in the wrong. I seriously suggest that you stop reinserting the Ofsted judgement into the lead of the article or there is a very real possibility that you will be banned from editing the page at all. Axad12 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tacyarg, I wonder if you could give us the benefit of your thoughts on a question, given that you have experience with a number of different articles for schools...

It's been pointed out several times now that Ofsted judgements do not belong in the lead section of this article (or any school article).

However, looking at the Ofsted-related material that user Jonmckenziex has been repeatedly trying to add to the article, it seems to be primarily about a disputed Ofsted grade and the school's attempts to contest it/dispute it, including steps taken in local media. My impression is that the material is of a non-notable and potentially promotional nature and has no place on Wikipedia at all.

Arguably it might have been the subject of an article or two in a local newspaper at the time, but that doesn't mean it warrants inclusion here. Also, the issue has no place outweighing pretty much everything else in the article about the school (i.e. under WP:UNDUE).

On top of that, the disagreements re: the 2022 Ofsted grade are now somewhat irrelevant as Ofsted has since given a higher grade based on its inspection of earlier this year.

When it comes to Ofsted grades, what is a reasonable way for these to be presented? Is it simply a question of, for example, 'In [year X] the school was inspected by Ofsted and graded as [insert grade].', or is there some leeway for the grade to be glossed in some way within the article? (e.g. '[....] with an additional provision that [insert specific aspect of the school] was graded as [insert grade]').

Obviously it goes without saying that comments by headmasters in local newspapers about what they think of their own school have no place on Wikipedia (as per WP:NPOV).

Given the edit warring that has been going on with this Ofsted-related material over recent days I think there is a strong argument for trying to arrive at a consensus position on what the article is allowed to say and what it should say.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this... Axad12 (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this does seem to have got a bit complicated. I will link Jonmckenziex (talk · contribs)'s post on my Talk page here. I will ping the WP: WikiProject Schools Talk page in a moment and see if there are more experienced editors who would like to comment. I will also link the school article guidelines if anyone hasn't seen them (they are guidelines, not policy). If I've got this right, the issues under discussion are:

Should the Ofsted judgement be included in the lead?
Should news coverage of the school's comments on the judgement be included?
Should the school's comment on the judgement of Outstanding, quoted in local news, be included?
Titles of the headteacher and previous heads.

I don't think the judgement should be included in the lead. This is on the basis that WP:LEDE says It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. I don't believe that the Ofsted judgement is one of the most important points about Harton Academy, partly because it changes over time. This is a school with more than 130 years of history - a recent judgement is not key. See also WP:BOOSTER, written for colleges and universities but also applies here: Do not give undue weight to rankings in the lead paragraphs or elsewhere in the article. Make sure to state the obvious in the first sentences of the lead paragraphs: it doesn't help the reader to know a university was ranked highly if he or she doesn't even know what or where it is in the first place! Moreover, the lead is not a section to astonish readers by establishing the quality of the college or university, only to serve as a summary of the rest of the article. I would welcome the views of other editors, however, and note that The Judd School, which has been a featured article, does include the school's most recent Ofsted in the lead, as part of an evidenced picture of a high-performing school.

News coverage of the school's comments on the judgements - I would say this should be excluded per WP:NOTNEWS. If the complaint had resulted in Ofsted changing the judgement, I think that might be different.

The school's comments on the judgement of Outstanding. As you say, this is promotional and should not be included. Many schools would describe themselves as wanting to provide "a world-class education offer" and be judged outstanding. The headteacher's view is not a notable feature of the school.

People's titles. "Mr Jon Skurr" and "Mr David Amos" should be referred to by their names solely, per MOS:SURNAME. I don't think there can be more than one policy-compliant view on that.

You ask specifically, Axad12, about whether there is room in articles for more detail about school judgements. I wouldn't rule it out completely, but would generally be against it as it could read promotional, and once we get beyond the overall judgement it's a bit overly detailed when looking at a school's key points and what makes it notable.

If I've missed anything that is being debated, please let me know. I've tried to set this out as even-handedly as possible and am assuming that all editors want a decent article to come out of this. Given the age of the school, and the several predecessor schools, there ought to be some really good content we could find about its history. I do sometimes add academic results to school articles, which is an option for this one; Harton's results are here (DfE tables). I'm going to stay away from editing the article directly for the moment and let others contribute, but happy to continue discussing here. Tacyarg (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tacyarg, that's really helpful.

The recent edit warring has consisted primarily of a large block of text being added and removed, most of which is inappropriate in some way or other, as per your comments above.

However, a very small part of that block of text is appropriate - i.e. the bit that records the 2024 Ofsted grade.

I just wonder, in terms of a constructive way forward, would Jonmckenziex be satisfied as long as that small element is included (given that most of the rest of the block of text is basically inadmissible)? Axad12 (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsensical that the article twice refers to "Outstanding" OfSTED grades when this isn't the current grade (it's currently rated as "Good"). I am about to add this to the article, but it would be fine to remove all references to OfSTED grades as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello

I am have made the appropriate adjustments to my additions. I have removed titles such as ‘Mr’, removed personal comments for Headteacher’s and CEO’s, and condensed information about Ofsted reports.

I have kept Headteacher appointments. This is in no way promotional, and simply recent and important information.

The Ofsted reports are not promotional. I have wrote about all of Harton Academy’s Ofsted grades (since their opening in 2017).

I am open to discussion about these additions and hopefully we can reach some form of agreements.

Regards Jonmckenziex (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me as though we are getting into WP:IDHT territory here, although I'm glad to see that you are no longer trying to add some of the material that you were previously edit warring over.

A few questions:

1) Based on the discussion above, the Ofsted result does not go in the lead section of the article. Why are you continuing to place it there?

2) What is the purpose of including detail on the disputed 2022 Ofsted report in the article at all, when it has been superseded by the higher grade that followed the 2024 inspection?

3) What is the purpose of including the sentence 'The previous Executive Headteacher, Sir Ken Gibson, remains as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Illuminare Multi Academy Trust.'? Why is this relevant to the article? Surely this is already covered in the info bar at the side of the article.

4) What is the purpose of the sentence 'The quality of education, behaviour and attitudes and leadership and management were rated as 'good'.', given that 'Good' has already been stated as the overall rating received by the school? Axad12 (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may be worth your while having a look at some Wikipedia articles for other schools to see how these are usually done. A couple of issues that you may wish to take particular note of:

Do the articles contain complete histories of the schools' Ofsted results?

Do the articles contain detailed information about the dates of headmaster appointments and/or about the circumstances in which they may have occurred?

I'd suggest that the answers to both of those questions is usually 'no'.

I appreciate that you are keen to alter the article in the way that you would like to see, but you need to take on board that there are certain policies that govern how these articles are written. Axad12 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to claim that the "requires improvement" judgement was over "issues in record keeping" is glossing over it somewhat, as it was in the safeguarding area which is a primary function of any school. I am tempted to revert this change. Black Kite (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As far as I'm concerned, the only part of this edit war that has any merit is that a sentence needs to be added to the article (but not in the lead) to say "An Ofsted report in 2024 rated the school as 'Good'."

Everything else that the user is trying to add is irrelevant and/or contrary to policy. Axad12 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jonmckenziex, could you give us some insight on the issue raised above by Black Kite, regarding a safeguarding issue being described in your recent edit as a record keeping issue?

It seems like rather an unusual oversight for an editor to make. Axad12 (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editors,

I have read your perspectives and am willing to compromise, and reach some form of civil agreement. I respect there are certain policies that we absolutely vital, however, I believe within this particular case; there is room for discussion.

Ofsted judgements

I stand by the fact that Ofsted judgements are very important, and should be featured in the lead (like most other school articles). Ofsted reports always feature five main categories, and an overall effectiveness rating. Displaying all these categories are factual and accurate representation of the report, and certainly not promotional and irrelevant. Wikipedia is a source of information, and therefore in my view, recent inspection judgements should be clear. If details about Ofsted reports can’t even be published, then what is the point of the article? I am open to further discussion on this.

2022 Ofsted judgement: ‘Record-keeping issue’

With your points about the 2022 Ofsted ‘record-keeping’ issue, which resulted in the ‘requires improvement’ rating. I’d be happy to include further context surrounding this important aspect of the school’s history.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

The purpose of the information surrounding the CEO is to provide context of key leadership of the academy and the Multi Academy Trust. This, however, can be removed if it clashes with any crucial Wiki policies.

Headteacher appointments

The Headteacher appointments should be kept, as it is again, very recent and accurate. The school has only had 8 Headteacher’s since its opening in 1936, and the previous Headteacher had a 20 year tenure. This is a very significant development in the schools history, and there I feel it is appropriate to display. It is also one of the only significant developments of the school, as Harton Academy, part of a Multi Academy Trust.

School site changes, within previous centuries

Your references to site changes don’t particularly make sense. The school on the current Lisle Road site did open in 1936, however, it has undergone significant changes throughout the 88 year history. The most recent significant development is that a new academy opened in 2017, due to the school developing a multi academy trust. When opening on its current site on Lisle Road, it did merge with two other schools. This particular page, in my view, should feature information about all of the different periods of the school on the current Lisle Road site.

Layout of the Wikipedia article

In my view, the lead should include 3 of the significant details about the school as Harton Academy. I think that the lead should include:

• The 2022 Ofsted rating, including the 5 categories of the Ofsted report, and the detail of ‘record-keeping’.

• The recent appointment of the new Headteacher.

• The 2024 Ofsted rating, including the 5 categories of the Ofsted report.

I then think that we should have a dedicated section about the school as ‘Harton Technology College’, as there is a significant wealth of information to display here. They operated as a Technology College from 1996 until 2017.

Anything else about the schools history, in my view, should be placed within the ‘history’ section of the article. There is very little information currently on the article about its 20th Century history. I’d be willing to work with editors to change this.

Other details

I have removed all references to local news articles and opinions of Headteacher’s and other senior leaders. All information displayed is factually accurate, and in my view, the Ofsted reports and Headteacher appointments should feature in the lead.

I think it’s fair to include all of the information about the school as ‘Harton Technology College’, under a specific section. This is as it is under entirely new leadership, and run entirely differently since this time.

There are other facts we could include, like the fact that the schools new building has recently been named as the ‘Sir Ken Gibson building’.

Again, since there seems to be suspicion, I can absolutely confirm that I do not work for the academy, nor do I volunteer for them.

I certainly hope we can reach some form of agreement.

Thank you for your cooperation. Jonmckenziex (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that none of this material has any place in the lead. I'm not sure why you are continuing to argue on that point. Tacyarg has already explained (above) the very precise and non-negotiable purpose of the lead section of a Wikipedia article. The lead is not for recent material, it is an overview.

Furthermore, it has already been pointed out that Wikipedia articles for schools are not intended as a receptacle for a complete history of a school's Ofsted grades, or for detailed accounts of Ofsted findings.

What you have written above is in no way an attempt to reach consensus, it is simply you saying once again that you want the article to look a certain way (and ignoring the consistent advice about why you are incorrect).

It seems to me that you have a preoccupation about a single rather trivial local news item, where a headmaster disputed an Ofsted grade. The contents of that article have no place on Wikipedia, but you repeatedly add details of those events to the article here despite other editors consistently reverting you.

Some of the editors who have been reverting you on this have made over 1,000 times as many Wikipedia edits as you have, I think you need to just accept that they have a better idea than you do about what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like. Axad12 (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a patronising, passive aggressive, rude and arrogant response to a user simply attempting to ensure that a Wikipedia article contains accurate, recent and up-to-date information. Is it seriously that hard for you to simply listen to somebody’s alternative perspective?

I was not attempting to reach a certain consensus. I was expressing my perspective, whilst listening to yours. Surely, if you fully reach my response, you’d be very aware of this?

• Of course local news articles by Headteacher’s don’t belong on Wikipedia. This is why I removed this information last week. Again, if you fully read my response; you’d be absolutely aware of this. I certainly do not have a preoccupation over this, the fact you’ve even made this remark emphasises your seemingly recurring habit of being presumable.

• On your point about Ofsted reports in the lead, it has been stated that there is leeway for this information to be within an articles lead. Tacyarg herself even said ‘The Judd School, which has been a featured article, does include the school's most recent Ofsted in the lead, as part of an evidenced picture of a high-performing school’.

I am extremely disappointed that you have completely failed to address the points that I have made within my very detailed response. You have simply dismissed everything I said, and made zero attempt to cooperate. Yes, there are people that have made thousands of edits more than me, but this doesn’t mean that they should be immune from criticism and from being wrong.

You haven’t responded to my suggested layout, questions about predecessor schools

and points about a schools history. As somebody who seems to spend the majority of there time on this site, surely, you’d be able to at least listen to somebody?

I sincerely hope that you can respond to be a more respectful and civilised manner Jonmckenziex (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last week or so on this article has been mainly characterised by unproductive, backwards and forwards edit warring. My notes above have been an attempt to resolve that by opening a dialogue about how much of the edit warred material should be in the article and where it should be located.

However, despite various points being made about Wikipedia policy, about the purpose (or otherwise) of specific elements of text, and about the accuracy of the statement re: the record keeping issue, your position doesn't seem to have moved and you haven't responded to specific content-related questions. Instead you simply reiterate why you want the article to look in a certain way.

I'll try again, and maybe we can take it point by point....

Have you read WP:LEAD and do you understand that the lead section of a Wikipedia article should only be a brief overview of the subject of the article?

Therefore can you accept that (regardless of any other considerations) the material that's being edit warred back and forth does not belong in the lead? Whether it belongs somewhere else is a different matter, but can we agree here that it doesn't belong in the lead?

Or can we perhaps compromise that apart from a brief statement like "In 2024 the school was rated by Ofsted as 'Good'", the rest of the edit warred material does not belong in the lead?

If you could just reply briefly on those closely related points for now then maybe we can get a productive dialogue going. Axad12 (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the edit wars have been significantly unproductive, but in my view, this is simply due to a fundamental lack of cooperation, communication and consideration.

I certainly have responded to specific questions, hence my detailed, thorough and lengthy message (in which you responded to in a perhaps negativistic manner). Have you not read my responses? If you’d like to repeat your apparent questions, you are more than welcome to.

I do understand that some perspectives claim that some elements don’t belong in the lead, however, as I have continuously pointed out; there are many cases where this isn’t the case at all.

To respond your direct questions, I think that the Ofsted reports should be published within the lead, with reference to the five main categories and the overall effectiveness rating. I think that all recent Ofsted reports should be visible in the lead. Jonmckenziex (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors,

I have read your perspectives and am willing to compromise, and reach some form of civil agreement. I respect there are certain policies that we absolutely vital, however, I believe within this particular case; there is room for discussion.

Ofsted judgements

I stand by the fact that Ofsted judgements are very important, and should be featured in the lead (like most other school articles). Ofsted reports alwaysfeature five main categories, and an overall effectiveness rating. Displaying all these categories are factual and accurate representation of the report, and certainly not promotional and irrelevant. Wikipedia is a source of information, and therefore in my view, recent inspection judgements should be clear. If details about Ofsted reports can’t even be published, then what is the point of the article? I am open to further discussion on this.

2022 Ofsted judgement: ‘Record-keeping issue’

With your points about the 2022 Ofsted ‘record-keeping’ issue, which resulted in the ‘requires improvement’ rating. I’d be happy to include further context surrounding this important aspect of the school’s history.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

The purpose of the information surrounding the CEO is to provide context of key leadership of the academy and the Multi Academy Trust. This, however, can be removed if it clashes with any crucial Wiki policies.

Headteacher appointments

The Headteacher appointments should be kept, as it is again, very recent and accurate. The school has only had 8 Headteacher’s since its opening in 1936, and the previous Headteacher had a 20 year tenure. This is a very significant development in the schools history, and there I feel it is appropriate to display. It is also one of the only significant developments of the school, as Harton Academy, part of a Multi Academy Trust.

School site changes, within previous centuries

Your references to site changes don’t particularly make sense. The school on the current Lisle Road site did open in 1936, however, it has undergone significant changes throughout the 88 year history. The most recent significant development is that a new academy opened in 2017, due to the school developing a multi academy trust. When opening on its current site on Lisle Road, it did merge with two other schools. This particular page, in my view, should feature information about all of the different periods of the school on the current Lisle Road site.

Layout of the Wikipedia article

In my view, the lead should include 3 of the significant details about the school as Harton Academy. I think that the lead should include:

• The 2022 Ofsted rating, including the 5 categories of the Ofsted report, and the detail of ‘record-keeping’.

• The recent appointment of the new Headteacher.

• The 2024 Ofsted rating, including the 5 categories of the Ofsted report.

I then think that we should have a dedicated section about the school as ‘Harton Technology College’, as there is a significant wealth of information to display here. They operated as a Technology College from 1996 until 2017.

Anything else about the schools history, in my view, should be placed within the ‘history’ section of the article. There is very little information currently on the article about its 20th Century history. I’d be willing to work with editors to change this.

Other details

I have removed all references to local news articles and opinions of Headteacher’s and other senior leaders. All information displayed is factually accurate, and in my view, the Ofsted reports and Headteacher appointments should feature in the lead.

I think it’s fair to include all of the information about the school as ‘Harton Technology College’, under a specific section. This is as it is under entirely new leadership, and run entirely differently since this time.

There are other facts we could include, like the fact that the schools new building has recently been named as the ‘Sir Ken Gibson building’.

Again, since there seems to be suspicion, I can absolutely confirm that I do not work for the academy, nor do I volunteer for them.

If you have any questions, problems, concerns or opinions to provide them please reply. I certainly hope we can reach some form of agreement.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Jonmckenziex (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

As a separate issue, the article does not mention that South Shields High School and Westoe Secondary School were located around a mile away on Mowbray Road; the current site only dates from 1936 when those two schools were merged and re-located to a new site. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]