Talk:Colchester Royal Grammar School

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

Shaw Jeffrey or Shaw Jeffreys[edit]

Was his name Shaw Jeffrey or Shaw Jeffreys? At the moment the page contains the references at the ratio of about 50/50! The people who kindly wrote the history of the school have it as Shaw Jeffreys, yet the footnote is in the name of Shaw Jeffrey as is the House Information. In addition, the school song annotation (I have now checked) has his name has Shaw Jeffrey, as does the official school plaque (on the organ). I can therefore surmise his name to be Shaw Jeffrey, no 's. and will change this soom.

This really needs to be sorted one way or the other.

I have done so

Jarry1250 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (Harry Burt)[reply]

March 2007 V2[edit]

Hello all, and thank you for contributing to this school site. I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Assessment team, and, as it has recently been editted, then I'm reviewing this page. I'm currently giving it a grade of start on the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and an importance of Mid on this importance scale.

My reasoning is as follows: This article is about a school from the 13th century. However the article starts well and then tends to weander into less important issues. More refs, history, relevant pictures Victuallers 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on recent performance[edit]

"However its position is due partly to its very tough eleven plus entrance exam, which selects only a small percentage of the area's brightest students. The local area utilises the smallest percentage enforced by any eleven plus selection process and in other areas the percentage is much higher, thus making any direct comparison ambiguous.[citation needed] A better comparison may be by taking the 'value added' score into consideration, where CRGS school falls behind the local Colchester County High School at GCSE level, and is marginally behind the comparable King Edward VI Grammar School (Chelmsford)[1]"

To me this is pointless and adds nothing to the article. The phrase "making any direct comparison ambiguous" is opinion promoting.

Point taken, thanks for bringing it to the talk page. What I think is needed here is some form of historical commentary on the performance of the school. Everything is a little current and I have been trying hard to keep this article from reading like a brochure. Sadly with the current ways of judging school performance, every school can find an area that they excel at and to ignore the areas they 'fail' at it POV. To give direct comparisons whilst ignoring the different contexts is also in my opinion POV. The current write up is looking much better. Pluke 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Eleven Plus factors[edit]

can someone please confirm my figures for eleven plus entrance exam intake. I believe it's 3% for the grammar school and essex in general. Other places like Northern Ireland have a looser ~20%. Thanks --Pluke 23:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It varies. As i passed my 11+ i know. In my year there were 4008 people taking it in the country but only 644 got in. That's around a 16% chance.... J.J.Sagnella 08:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You surely mean county. If you are currently at the school could you ask some of the staff if there are documents confirming this as i would love to get a source to check by. Also the number of people taking the exam out of the entire child population is now much reduced, as you have to pay to enter? (making the concept even more ludicrous, but that is most definitely a POV :). And we really need to work out percentage pass with regards to the entire potential population. If you are interested in this please take a look at Eleven_plus, Tripartite_System and Debates_on_the_grammar_school. Pluke 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably it is county. But what i say is all that was on my sheet for passing. And we didn't have to pay any longer but the year before it was £5. J.J.Sagnella 10:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took the 11+ last year and there were 450 people who took the test to get to CRGS. This means that there was a 21.3333...% chance of getting through, however I suggest this information be taken out. And no, there is no fee. Jake95 23:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we should include this information because it always depends on how many people take the test. Jake the Editor Man 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of AD CE.[edit]

The page has been locked today because of this issue and the failure for Central to engage in discussion. Could I please call everyone's attention to the wikipedia guidelines on the issue at: Wikipedia:Eras#Policy_in_question, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate and to the minor discussion at Talk:Common_Era. You've finished? Good. I hope you realise that there is no official wikipedia agreement on the issue and I suggest we seek a consenus amongst the page editors and put forward any arguments for and against below. Then we can vote. Debate will close on the 11th July 19:00 UTC. Pluke 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there that rule on whether something should be American or British Spellings? We should use that rule on ad/ce. If AD appeared first, I say use that. J.J.Sagnella 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule about AD CE. There are arguments on both sides for the other being POV. I believe it should stay AD due to the fact that it started off as AD and changing serves no purpose, also AD is the more commonly used making the page more accessable.I think we are the two major editors of this page, any one else out there? Pluke 17:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No rule? Weird. I think there should be. J.J.Sagnella 17:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK we seem to have come to agreement to use AD, will get this page unlocked and finally clean up this nasty situation. Sorry i should have sorted this on the 11th but have been busy. Pluke 19:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting[edit]

This dispute seems to have resolved itself. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox[edit]

If anyone attends CRGS I have made a userbox: {{User crgs}}. However sometimes it doesn't work !? Jake95 23:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you couldn't spell :P.

I've moved it to Template:User crgs --jftsang 18:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ofsted Boarding Report[edit]

NPOV?. I am not disputing the reliability of the information from the Ofsted inspection but cannot see that the use of the quotation adds anything relevent to the article. Should we remove it? 129.12.200.49 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated deletion of section on academic achievement[edit]

Please stop deleting the section on the page and discuss here why you feel so compelled to do so. Thanks Pluke 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because people don't need to know the exact exam results of the school: it is boring to read and needs annual updating. People do not go on Wikipedia to find out the exam pass results of schools. A link to independent league table would suffice. The Gilberd, also in Colchester, does not have reference to its academic achievements. The only people who would want to see this on Wikipedia are CRGS staff, because it acts as an advertisement for the school. 86.168.21.166 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Colchester Royal Grammar School logo.png[edit]

Image:Colchester Royal Grammar School logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Alumni[edit]

I suggest the removal of the [citation needed] tag on Giles Smith's name. He mentions several times in his book "lost in music" that he attended the school.

86.29.175.123 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm am Old Colcestrian and in the litany of historical facts that were pumped into us on a regular basis, when I was at the school in the 1960s, was that William Gilbert, of magnetism fame, was an old boy of the school but he is not listed here. Has this claim been dropped? If so why? If not, why is he not included? Does anybody know the facts?Thony C. (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1206[edit]

Don't delete the statement about 1206 that is in need of a citation. I've got a book on the history of the school - I just need to find it so I can add the reference. DryCleanOnly (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year 7 etc[edit]

Can someone link or explain what Year 7, 8 etc. means? I'm old enough to pre-date the new-fangled system of dating years and am only familiar with the traditional class names like "First Year", "Sixth-form" etc. I'm probably not unique. Expressions like "Year 7" are meaningless. Thanks. Ephebi (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year 7 is first year, year 8 is second year and so on. Years 12 and 13 both make up the sixth form (lower and upper sixth). At least that's how it is in Bucks, and I'm assuming all of England uses the same system. Ollie Fury Contribs 21:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid response but the wiki article on Year Seven suggests this isn't consistently applied across the UK. Ephebi (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From reading Year Seven, it seems that the system used throughout England is virtually the same (same age group, 11-12). The only difference is that some counties include Year 7 as the final year of primary school, whilst others have it as the first year of secondary school. But it is still consistent with first year. Ollie Fury Contribs 22:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that it equates to Form Three, where children between 8 and 9 are in Form 1, putting them traditionally before 'the removes'. The age range is the thing to compare, though, and students in Year 7 are almost always 11 at the start of the year in September and 12 at the end. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gosh, Forms were so much simpler! So, to summarise the information above, I take it that, per OllieFury above, CRGS's First Form = Year 7 = age 11/12, Fifth Form = Year 11 = age 15/16, Sixth Form = Years 13 & 14, ages 16-18??? 17:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the present system starts at Year 1 (in primary school of course) and keeps on going until year 13, incrementing by one year each time. Quite logical really. At CRGS, we have years 7 to 13. Sixth form = years 12 and 13 i.e. ages 16 to 17 and 17 to 18. Jarry1250 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw Jeffrey[edit]

I'm quite a long way in now with the Percy Shaw Jeffrey article, and am running out of information to easily add. I've still got to get hold of some of his literature which would be useful, for instance. Any help greatly appreciated.

Before I can get back to school (Jan 6th), a list of headmasters (w/ dates) would also be very useful.

Cheers! Jarry1250 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Lynch[edit]

Should he be on the list?

Top credit it would seem is working on the Witness series for Al Jazeera English. I can't find a site that ties him to the programme, but one special was nominated for an International Emmy. However, he certainly wasn't the producer of that one, at least according to (what appears to me to be) their website here. He may well have been producer of episodes that weren't that one (they cover a lot of topics), but I can't find a source. Searching for "Keith Lynch" on that website yields nothing. I'm just not seeing exception here - we've listed 35ish people from thousands. I've found this which confirms that he's with the for-mentioned station, though. Any more evidence or TV credits? -

Al Jazeera gives no credits for its films, other than the Director. A quick email to the Witness address on the site will get you all the confirmation required. Keith Lynch has also written the theme music for three strands on the channel other than Witness. Namely, Birthrights, Activate and Struggle Over The Nile. He was also the Editor of Tracey Emin's film for the 2001 Beck's Futures, 'Sometimes The Dress Is Worth More Money Than The Money'.

Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penney: an old student?[edit]

I believe I have the source of Nhyty's deletion. The ODNB article (which is currently down at the moment, so I can't quote from it) suggests that although Penny qualified for CRGS, he actually took up a position at the technical college in Colchester. This would thus invalidate any CRGS claim to have him as an "old boy". - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checked ODNB - "he proved a good enough student to qualify for grammar school. It was not to be... he could not afford to maintain the boy as a boarder. So young Penney went to technical school, first in Colchester..." ODNB is WP:RS but this is strange wording and not logical as CRGS always took day boys. ODNB doesn't suggest a source for this. Maybe if there's someone in the school reading this they could ask about the registers for c.1919-22.
I shall look into it. I believe there was a period when CRGS did not accept day boys around the turn of the century i.e. about when Penney was at school. And since the Technical College did exist, one must presume, I think, that the ODNB has it right. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 17:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the ONDB counts as WP:RS (regardless of my suspicions) - but you might want to double-check your understanding of boarders in the inter-war period. I know another Old Colcestrian who was a day boy in the 1920-30s. Penney would have been of school age just a few years earlier. Ephebi (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Colchester Royal Grammar 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) 09:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colchester Royal Grammar 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) 22:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overly detailed?[edit]

The sections on school facilities and subjects are comprehensive, but perhaps they give unnecessary detail about the school? My concern is that those sections are unreferenced, and could quickly become outdated if the school ever changes its subjects or its facilities (say, buys a new machine for its technology classrooms). --jftsang 12:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colchester_Royal_Grammar_School&oldid=1206739733"