Talk:The King's School, Canterbury

March 2007

Hello all, and thank you for contributing to this school site. I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Assessment team, and, as it appears to be one of the oldest schools in England, 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 High on this importance scale.

My reasoning is as follows: This article is a fair size at the moment. This is a very old school which is too important not to be acknowledged. Could do with more refs and maybe a photo. B class is close. Victuallers 14:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

---

You may want to consider upgrading this article to conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Davodd 08:03, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

OFT

It's hard to see how the fact that the school is part of a 50 school investigation by the OFT justifies such a large proportion of the report. You may or may not have views on the OFT and independent schools, but surely a 1500 year history deserves a little more balance. I have rewritten it a bit to strip out the emotive language, but I don't think it really belongs there at all. I am not associated with the school at all, but I do know the details of the OFT decision and the 'level of collusion' of the schools involved, and to dominate this article with this paragraph is, in my opinion, most unfair. Stuart White 18:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks odd. I would delete.PaddyBriggs 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely unethically scamming several hundreds parents for at least a thousand pounds a year is one of the most significant events in the school's history so far? 131.111.195.8 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fees are over £20K/year according to admissions@kings-canterbury.com and http://www.schoolsguidebook.co.uk/schools/The_King146s_School_Canterbury.html. Conservatively assuming just a small 5% hike after fixing fees with a cartel of 50 other schools for many years, this is easily £1000/year/pupil if not more? 131.111.195.8 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Talkfact. Although the school does have a 1500 year history, the OFT investigation is something which is very relevant to people interested in the school today. Possible after some years this information will be less relevant, but for now I think it should stay. --zrenneh (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that can qualify as a citation. You are speculating. What were the fees in 1995? --Copperman 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hickster's edit

Too POV. Neutrally phrased, might be acceptable. Don't know enough about subject to make suitable changes. David | Talk 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

my good nick name has been slurred too long. Dbiv (a sworn wiki enemy of mine) trawls Wikipedia removing my valuable contributions...this is what I wrote. And it's true

...Many think that the headmaster treats the pupils and staff with disrespect and has a managerialists joy for changing rules without understanding the effect he has. An unsuccessful staffroom revolt saw a large percentage of the more traditional teachers leave to be replaced by more 'on message' replacements. While some argue that the headmaster is a souless, emotionally disturbed devil, others counter that he has done the impossible and turned wonderland into a training ground for the harsh realities of Blair's Britain.

Blatant Lies

Forget Point Of View This article is simply untrue, and as a current pupil I would know. King's has very low levels of bullying and there is definitely no homophobia. Visitors to King's often comment on how friendly the pupils are. You could say I'm biased, but this article is very far from the truth. And just to clarify: King's has never been fined for fee fixing, It was associated with schools that were, but did not actually fix its fees. And the fact that the bursar earns more than the minimum wage is a true for any school and most people earn some multiple of the minimum wage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.253.248 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

As another current pupil, I would like to ask the person responsible for re-adding in the statement about latent bullying and homophobia at King's to stop adding it in. It is completely untrue, and how insane would a school have to be to be homophobic AND stop pupils from coming within 2 metres (2 METRES!) of the opposite sex? What, so we have to sit on opposite sides of the classroom?

To add to the above two:

"it can be noted that former pupils and teachers have alleged that the school is rife with unchecked bullying"

I'd like citations, because (again), it kind of falls under the category of "untruths".

I am a former pupil and, understandibly, I'd prefer to remain anonymous. I have been to several schools, both private and state and have never encountered such a degree of bullying beneath the surface. All purples (prefects) and most sixth formers are complicit with systematic bullying and, more often than not, housemasters and housemistresses would turn a blind eye and leave it to the pupils to sort out amongst themselves. Call it lying if you will, but I cannot keep this on my conscience any longer. I know of at least eight suicide attempts in my few years there and knew people with very real mental scarring from the place. I know of kids there who would torture younger pupils with BB guns, lighters, etc. and it was not restrained to certain houses or personalities. Furthermore, there were several petty goings on and incidents. There were only two openly homosexual pupils while I was there and one was forced to leave after physical violence and death threats from pupils, mostly the rugby teams. The headmaster was approached to see if he would help, but offered no assistance. In the last two years hoodies and baseball caps have been banned. I have never been to a school where there was such despair and misery under the surface.

Most of the edits denying this can be traced to IPs within the school. Hardly NPOV. 131.111.195.8 00:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can substantiate your statements, fine. However, you say that these are FORMER pupils and teachers. That does not mean that it is CURRENTLY going on. Unless you can substantiate your claims, with references, I don't think it is appropriate to continually add this information to this site. I'm not sure that even if you can substantiate them that this is appropriate. That is not what this site is for. If you have a grievance, voice it elsewhere. IPs within the school may be pupils who are CURRENTLY at the school editing your comments. They are quite computer literate you know. --Copperman 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not been in contact with former teachers since they left but am still in touch with several pupils there and those who left last Septemer. I would not usually mention aspects of a school like this but there is so much more bubbling under the surface at this school than anywhere else. They will continue to try to cover it all up, but I suspect something big will come up soon. This concerns me greatly and is certainly noteworthy.

As for the edits, several were made during "prep time" or after 23:00 when pupils do not have access to the internet. 131.111.195.8 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that many of the houses have networked computers and therefore pupils can have access to the internet during prep time. Also, I again state that I do not believe this is the forum for you to air your grievances with the school. Take it up with the school, or provide citation in the page for making these allegations. "it can be noted that former pupils and teachers have alleged that the school is rife with unchecked bullying" Did you or did you not put this sentence into a version of this or the article page? COI: Former pupil of the school, no longer affiliated. --Copperman 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the houses have networked computers. However, none of the pupils are permitted to access the internet for research during prep time. In addition, pupils are not permitted to access the internet after their prescribed bedtimes - for the 18 year old pupils, this is 11pm every day. This does not appear to be a grievance rather noting that this school, above all others, appears to have a problem in certain areas that lies just beneath the surface.80.189.72.214 16:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pupils have access to the internet during Prep time and after 11pm. I'm a pupil, it's almost midnight, I'm on the internet. Maybe you're sore about having a bad time here, but I'm certainly not, and theres no point slagging it off on Wikipedia of all places. Brainaic 22:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply not true. Who's resorting to lies now? 80.189.65.216 21:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is that a lie? Do you really want me to prove it? Do I have to prove it? What shall I show you, my name, house, date of birth, pupil number, etc?Brainaic 16:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To be specific, your statement, "Pupils have access to the internet during Prep time and after 11pm", has been verified to be untrue. And to prove it, your date of birth is 07/11/1988. 80.189.65.216 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that I'm pretending to be me? Why would I bother to imposter someone? This is rediculous - It's prep time now, I'm on the internet. So are most of the house, if they're not actually working. I normally get to sleep at around half past midnight, the internet still works then. Who's verified that the internet doesn't work during prep and after 11pm? Because it's rubbish and they know it. Yes, when I was in the shells and removes the 6th formers were the only people that were able to go on the internet during prep. However, that changed when I was in the 5th form I believe. Anyway, everyone gets to go on the internet during prep. As for you being bullied and all that - to be completely honest, if you're that bothered about defacing a schools reputation on THE INTERNET, Wikipedia of all sites, after you've left the school for a few years then I'm not suprised that you were bullied - your personality shines through.

I would just like to add that if you are going to refer to the Calendar, please do it accurately. Rules 1)ii actually reads (The following are out of bounds) 'The Kingsmead playing field, and the riverside path and underpass on that side beyond the Sainsbury's bridge'. I believe you are referring to 1)iii which says 'The city before 1.10pm (10.15 am on Sundays), at all other times when lessons are in progress, and after 6pm (6:30 pm for 6as only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays). During the Autumn and Lent terms the city is out of bounds to Shells after 4pm and to Removes after 5pm.' Please note - TO SHELLS. Don't take this and imply that it's for the whole school. Also the 6th form are allowed out after prep time anyway. Next: You've made some sneaky changes to the personal relationships rule, taking it out of context entirely. In particular, the word 'excessive'. The rule is as follows: 'EXCESSIVE displays of affection in public, GOING BEYOND normal greetings, are not allowed'. And the third one - not true. Rule 8)i is 'BELOW 6A, boys are not permitted to visit girls' studies nor girls to visit boys' studies at any time'. As for same-sex visits, Rule 8)iii -> 'boys may visit other boys' studies and girls may visit other girls' studies from morning break until the beginning of prep. After prep such visiting is restricted to the 6th form.' I've put the important parts in capitals just for you. I'm taking this from the most recent version of the calendar - Autumn Term 2006. Brainaic 19:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, calm down. It doesn't appear that anyone implied anything of the sort. No need to get yourself worked up. I will address each of your concerns in turn and then attempt to justify the inclusion of the information you seem intent on covering up.

I am in contact with several former pupils and current pupils at King's (yes, that's how I know your name and date of birth). I trust the information they provide me. It was confirmed that last year pupils in Shells, Removes and Fifths were unable to use the internet during homework hours. I assumed that this hadn't been changed because, at that time, the IT department were unwilling to negotiate this. It appears that this restriction has since been removed although there is still mass censorship. Numerous online articles, ebooks and political texts are blocked for all pupils and staff. For boarding pupils, there is no way to get this information during term time. No pupils are allowed to access the internet after 23:00 as everyone is in bed with the lights out by then. Remind me the bedtime for Shells - it is either 21:30 or 22:00, isn't it? Nobody in the school (which has pupils up to the age of 18 and sometime 19) is allowed up even to read a book after 23:00.

It's true that many sites ARE blocked, including Wikipedia. However, it appears that I'm still using it. After 23:00. Strange, isn't it?

Bedtime for shells is 22:00, yes. And whats wrong with that? This is no different (give or take 15 mins) from any other boarding school.

In fact we're (I'm including all 6As and possibly 6Bs in other houses) meant to be in our rooms after 23:15. And can have the lights on or off as we please. So in fact pupils in the school ARE allowed to read a book after 23:00. This is yet another example of where you take a fact and mangle it up to fit your agenda.

I never attended the King's School and luckily none of my acquaintaces who did are/were bullied. However, there is no denying that a large amount of bullying goes on, with staff complicit in much of it. They were all very much aware of it. There is a large amount of bullying between year groups with the older pupils being especially cruel and violent to younger pupils. This vicious cycle is continued when the younger pupils move up the years and no-one appears to be willing to speak out at it due to intimidation. Indeed, members of staff and people like you probably think that a good beating for no good reason is a normal part of education. This is not normal in any school at all and deserves being specifically mentioned.

Believe what you want to, but it doesn't happen as you say it does. It may have done in the past (in fact, why don't you edit the article and add in that fagging still happens, it's all in the same vein of 'truth' to you), but now it's not nearly as you describe.

For you next point, you fail to deny the truths in the article yet still repeatedly edit them out. It is a fact that for two thirds of the school year pupils are forbidden from town after 16:00. It is a fact that pupils are not allowed out before 13:10. "Excessive" is a completely undefined word that was chosen specifically for that reason. If you want to clarify it with regard to enforcement of that rule, hand-holding in public is discouraged if not actively forbidden and greeting friends with a kiss is completely disallowed. Both of these strike me as being completely unnatural and probably detrimental to a healthy upbringing. Finally, you again fail to deny that pupils are not allowed to visit different-sex pupils. This is incredibly short-sighted as I'm sure you will agree. Normal relationships are outlawed.

'Pupils' is a nice way of putting it. How about 'The youngest year of the school', or 'The ones who are most likely to get hurt after dark'. Hand holding is not discouraged (only time I've ever seen it so was as a joke), and you can greet friends however you want. The rules are there so that if people are being suitably embarrassing, the school can point to the rules and say 'You weren't meant to do that'. Normal relationships are not outlawed, pupils and teachers know that. We're just not expected to end up shagging in our rooms. Pupils are allowed into different-sex pupils houses, just not their rooms. And in 6a, we're allowed into their rooms. There you go, I've denied it. In fact, lets rephrase what you've written here to make it more accurate:

For two thirds of the school year, one fifth of the school, the ones who are most likely to get in trouble with the local chavs due to their size and age, are not allowed into town after 16:00. Better? Or is the malignant spin that you love so much missing now?

Why would we want to go into town before lunch time anyway? I mean, we're not exactly going to go out for breakfast as it's already provided for us in the dining room. Oh, and then theres lessons. Then 25 mins break around 11:00, where most of the school is busy making toast. Then more lessons, then lunch. And finally a period of time longer than 30 mins where we can actually go into town without being late for lessons or whatever. So yes, it is a fact that pupils are not allowed out before 13:10. But context is everything.

I think the reason so many wish to point these facts out as well as the recent inspection results are because there are several aspects of this school that are decidedly abnormal and unhealthy. They are in fact so strange and colour the school so significantly that they are deserving of mention in a NPOV enclyclopaedia entry. Things that concern me the most about this school include the following:

I think that if you look at the recent inspection results you'll find that they were decidedly complimentary, going as far as to praise the 'Natural and open relationships' which you seem unable to accept.

1. A pupil expelled for kissing another pupil of the same sex in pupil. This pupil was subjected to physical assaults afterwards and received no help at all apart from being made to leave the school.

Can't say I've heard about this one.

2. The fact that cinemas, theatres, arcades and a café are out of bounds for all pupils with no explanation.

If you ask a teacher, they'll give you a reason. If you want to go to the cinema, you ask your housemaster and they say yes. It's a simple procedure. Noone wants to go to the theatre anyway. If we do, we'll probably be allowed to. Arcades (I'm assuming that you're referring to the gambling kind) are out of bounds precisely BECAUSE they're for gambling. And the cafe because of what used to happen when it wasn't made out of bounds.

3. The banning of mobile phones and internet messaging programs to keep in touch with friends and family.

Mobile phones are allowed and MSN works on the school network. I love how you're coming up with complete rubbish.

4. The fact that pupils must eat three meals a day in school and cannot choose where/what/when to eat for themselves.

Unless the pupil breaks a rule that can't be enforced. In fact, it's very common for this to happen. It's simply a way for the school to put the blame on the pupil if parents complain that their children aren't getting enough nutrition.

5. The fact that, to my knowledge, at least five suicide attempts have taken place related to the pupil's relationship with the school and not been acknowledged at all. In all cases, no long term support was provided and the first solution they came up with was to leave the school.

Again I haven't heard anything but rumours concerning this. In fact I have no idea what pupil you're referring to. It's certainly not during my time here anyway.

Remember that this is not a day school. It is a boarding school where pupils up to the age of 18 or 19 cannot simply wait until they get home, or do as they please at the weekend. There is no escaping this regime. Please consider this before editing the article to favour your bias and miss out important information.Alain Vey 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to forget this seeing as I attend the school and I board. Oh, and I can easily wait until I get home, which is handy seeing as I go home 6 times a year. You insist on misrepresenting the school based on rumours that you've heard. Great, you found out my name - that doesn't mean that you've got any up to date information concerning the school at all. Last thing - people can break the rules. They're not all there to be kept.Brainaic 00:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, have we finally stopped this argument then? Copperman 17:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC) PS: I'm not surprised suicide attempts are not acknowledged. Generally suicide attempts are resorted to by persons suffering from depression of some kind, which is a mental health issue and therefore subject to confidentiality issues.

Nice flame war. I was at King's - I loved it - I left in '99. Taken from a modern viewpoint, yes, bullying is rife, however back in my day (all of a decade ago!) we just called it Fagging. Deal with it. And yes, there was a chap in my house (Linacre) who nearly got killed over a girl - he was beaten most of the way to death on the Luxmoore lawn. They keep very, very quiet about that kind of thing. Nice nordic chap... Can't recall his name, although I can recall the name of the chap who instigated the beating, but I shan't recount it here. --87.80.43.97 11:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know two children who attend Kings and both have been bullied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.139.78 (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

None of the above adequately captures the misery I experienced in this place. Growing up queer in King's was a special kind of hell I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I tried to end my life twice during my time there. Maugham was unbelievably fortunate to have escaped when he did. Public schools are a blight, and their ongoing existence is a symptom of the UK's failure to do right by the disadvantaged among its population. 185.104.186.10 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Beadle Tradition

Is this a "tradition" or a Wilkinsonian innovation? Was started in about 1997, no? Jimothy.

Jimothy: My older sibling is an OKS. He entered King's in 1995 and the Beadle had already been about for a good while (ie; before Wilkinson).

Actually the Beadle used to be the RSM, prior to becoming the Beadle. There was no office known as "The Beadle" at King's certainly between 1988 and 1995. Prior to that some of the function of the Beadle was carried out by teachers at the school, whilst other functions were left to the Deputy Headmaster and the Senior Mistress. -- Copperman 20:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep - he only became the beadle in 97 or so - he was the RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major) prior to that. --87.80.43.97 11:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Beadle left at the end of summer 08 and at that point it was acknowledged that, while it seems like a tradition, the office of The Beadle was only brought in by Canon Wilkinson, the previous Headmaster...just to confirm from an inside source. 04cah (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Facilities and Religious Studies

The facilities part of the article lists the rooms of the various academic subjects. Where is Religious Studies?! I don't know where it is, so I would rely on a pupil or an old boy putting this in, but as an RE teacher I see it as quite a significant oversight! Thanks, Hail True Body 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added R.S. to the Subject List; apologies if it's more often known as Religious Education. Hail True Body 15:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the RS department in under 'Lattergate'Brainaic 00:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it no longer known as Scriptures? --87.80.43.97 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, officially, Religious Studies, usually RS. 04cah (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oldest extant school

I'm not sure about your claim to be the oldest extant school in the world. Shishi Middle School in China claims to have been founded between 143 and 141 BC and is still in existence today. Unfortunately their claim is not backed up by a reference. Dahliarose 13:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Shishi Middle School closed for a substantial amount of time, was demolished and the current school built on the site. I don't believe that this qualifies it to claim to be founded c.143-141 BC. A school was founded there, but not the current school. 62.25.109.197 (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that Winchester College has the oldest recorded history: statutes, lists of scholars, original buildings, etc. Millbanks (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A college is not for children though. 62.25.109.197 (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"Winchester College was founded in 1382 by William of Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester", so it is 785 years younger than King's. In this case "college" is a school for children as is, for example, Eton college. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Edward Heath

The article on Edward Heath states that he was in the sixth form at King's Canterbury, and became head boy. But his name does not appear on your alumni list, nor is it in his Who's Who entry. Millbanks (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference has now been deleted. Millbanks (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Old King's Scholars renaming

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) 13:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

School name

I have moved the page back to the original name, see the discussion on User talk:Handsdown.1#The_King's School. "The" has been part of the title since its refounding in 1541. Any further proposals for a move should be discussed here, first. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The King's School, Canterbury. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210085920/http://goodschoolsguide.co.uk/school/the-kings-school-canterbury.html to http://goodschoolsguide.co.uk/school/the-kings-school-canterbury.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210085920/http://goodschoolsguide.co.uk/school/the-kings-school-canterbury.html to http://goodschoolsguide.co.uk/school/the-kings-school-canterbury.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)