Talk:City of London Academy Highbury Grove

Proposed change of heading of "Controversy" section

I propose changing the title of the "Controversy" section to "Media coverage". Then notable coverage both positive or negative can be covered without the perhaps negative POV connotations of the word 'controversy'. If so, the new para on the recent Times Robert Crampton coverage currently sitting in the "History" section would sit more happily in the new section. Any views? Peteinterpol (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Since when has the word "controversy" had POV connotations? RomanSpa (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Peteinterpol. "Media coverage" seems more neutral. Readers can decide for themselves how controversial it is. I also agree that the Robert Crampton visit, if it is to be included at all, is much too recent to be called "history", though my inclination would be to remove it altogether, unless the article says something significant about the school, in which case that should be added. As it stands it looks to be of very marginal relevance. -- Alarics (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact I've now checked Crampton's piece and he says nothing at all about Highbury Grove apart from mentioning in passing that he visited it. So I have deleted that paragraph. -- Alarics (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

TV "appearance"

This school is mentioned in another article: Dispatches_(TV_programme)#Undercover_Teacher. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. That 2005 programme was mentioned here until I removed it in 2018 on the grounds that it was ancient and irrelevant. It's fine at the other end as part of the record of what the programme did, but has no relevance here: it is not really even the same school. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)