Jump to content

Talk:Chris Woodhead

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

Untitled

[edit]

A few points:

  • Nobody objected to attempts to drive up standards, there was controversy about Woodhead's methods and style (justified, I think).
  • Rumours shouldn't be here.
  • I don't like the man myself, and you may not believe his side of the story, but nobody's actually proved he had an inappropriate relationship while the girl was at his school, and she says not.
  • Most teachers I knew thought the "progressive teaching" he claimed was happening in every school was in fact incredibly rare, and his "traditional" methods were already widespread, his arguments having more to do with what Daily Mail readers thought was happening in schools than what was actually going on.

--Andrew Norman 15:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

his background

[edit]

Chris taught English at The Prory School for Boys, Shrewsbury. His first job, I believe, and as the most junior member of department. The pupils liked him and he did well. I was Head of Fifth Year from 1970 to 1974 and spent half my time in the English Dept. 

He was serious, unassuming and a devotee of Ted Hughes' Crow amongst other things.

His Head of Dept was Andrew Bannerman.

Scandal

[edit]

Chris Woodhead is most famous for the scandal over his alleged affair with a former pupil. Even the most cursory of internet searches will verify this. At the least it points to a change in public perception of the standards a teacher was formerly and is now expected to follow. Regarding Hal Raglan odd misunderstanding, most people accept that the 'News Of The World' scoop was salacious and twisted the facts so as to suggest Woodhead endorsed sexual liasions with 17 and 18 year old pupils; what is of relevance, however, is that the 'highrow' broadsheets raised concerns over the fact his comments appeared to be at odds with government policy, because he condoned platonic relationships as 'educative'. This also concerned the teaching unions and government ministers. And why did it concern these parties? Because Woodhead had - according to his first wife, former pupils and former colleagues - embarked upon his relationship with his current wife when she was a pupil at his school. Sure, his solicitor might have issued a statement denying this version of events, but none of the aforementioned parties withdrew their allegations, and nor did Woodhead follow things up with legal action e.g. a writ for libel or slander.

There is a wealth of evidence on the internet proving that this controversy over-shadowed Woodhead's career, and resulted indirectly in his dismissal. Nobody has suggested that his behaviour was unlawful or sinister, just that he appears to have began an affair with a pupil back in the days when it was not a crime. As the pupil was over the age of consent, and because he is now married to the individual concerned, he clearly did not act in a predatory way. However, there remains the issue of whether his behaviour appropriate at the time, and this should be left to the unions, ministers and highbrow newspapers who employ expert journalists to decide.

It shouldn't be down to me, Hal Raglan or anyone else to arbitarily rule upon whether this high profile is featured in a Wiki entry. What's more, in seeking to distort Woodhead's Wiki entry, by pretending there was no scandal, it is not only ethically wrong, but also hypocritical, given the wealth of unpleasant speculation about genuinely salacious behaviour engaged in by Gary Glitter, Jonathan King and Michael Jackson which is to be found elsewhere on Wiki. Woodhead's behaviour has not been salacious; at worst it was ill-advised and arguably inappropriate. However, given the fact that he held the most senior educational position in the country, the incident and resulting scandal is of major relevance.

The Leveller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.146.195 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should read and attempt to comprehend Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The policy makes it very clear what can be included in wikipedia articles, and also notes that any material that violates the policy should be immediately removed. If there is a wealth of evidence on the internet, since you are so keen on including this material then you should find and include reliable references before reinstating the material. -Hal Raglan (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is irrelevant. Woodhead is now dead. His affair is relevant and should be dealt with in the article. 86.185.216.227 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally "keen" to see this issue included in the entry, but I do believe that Wiki should provide accurate and balanced information. As it is one of the defining issues of Woodhead's career, it should be referenced. [Good grief, is it any wonder that Wiki is losing contributors at a rate of tens of thousands per month? You Super Editors / Moderators don't really approve of general public input and seem happy to alienate or offend the casual expert contributor. I've almost given up contributing myself because you lot are constantly undoing changes on really very picky grounds. You've become bureaucrats instead of facilitators. I've written the bulk of thirty or forty entries but in the last couple of years you guys have become such control freaks, all to eager to allow puffed praiseworthy entries by self-promoters, while nit-picking at those who seek to restore a healthier, middle ground objective perspective. A classic example would be Max Clifford - a famous PR spin doctor whose clients include Simon Cowell and a whole string of celebrities who want their public image manipulated in a fraudulent positive light - his entry has obviously been tinkered with in his favour (as happens with many other celebrities and politicians). Never have so many scandals been so deeply hidden as on Wikipedia, an alleged champion of the freedom of speech the internet once promised. It's obvious that many people view Wiki as an open CV and they manipulate it accordingly. This is perhaps just one reason why Wiki is losing ground and credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.79.162 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


While I accept that there should not be anything which could be considered libel, I feel that failing to mention the circumstances of meeting his second wife significantly effects the article. Woodhead was head of the english department at Gordano school in Portishead near Bristol when he met her, but there is no mention of the school or his role. I'm not sure if I can add this to the main article because my knoweldge comes from the fact that I was a pupil there at the time rather than rather than any written source. Jeffgwatts (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Chris Woodhead never married Amanda Johnson, he simply lived with her. It's not true (as the article currently claims) that Cathy Woodhead made her allegations about Chris wanting a menage a trois after his death - she made them in an article in the Mail on Sunday published 7th March 1999 (as is confirmed in the reference provided). Chris Woodhead's second marriage was to Christine Kensett in 2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11693238/Sir-Chris-Woodhead-Ofsted-chief-obituary.html , apparently they met at Ofsted. StephenJPC (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Education and Qualifications?

[edit]

Is anyone able to confirm whether Chris Woodhead's MA is in Education or English Literature and when he was awarded it? I ask as in every interview and talk he seems so woefully unaware of recent educational research (or any educational research really) that it is hard to believe he could have engaged with enough of it to merit an MA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.120.14 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopaedic tone

[edit]

I don't like his sort as much as I'm sure most decent teachers and left wingers don't, but the article as of 13/4/11 has a couple of jibes that make it read more like something out of private eye than an encyclopaedia article. Particularly the parting shot about driving him off a cliff. I'm removing that now, and would suggest a review of neutrality is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.240.154 (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Woodhead. 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) 04:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Woodhead. 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) 18:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Woodhead&oldid=1208843230"