Talk:Teach First

Drive-by NPOV tag

NPOV tag added 18 October 2015, I would be grateful for input as to the reason to add this tag.Lacunae (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The underlying problem is the overwhelming relianace on primary sources, particularly in the lede, also there is no reflection of the mixed reception in the lede. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Do you think perhaps the lede would be more neutral if the second paragraph were put into the main body of the article? And yes, I think I agree that there are definite sources which have named the scheme as controversial for a mention of this to be made.Lacunae (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking the thing to do is remove everything without an appropriate source. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• this edit is just bizarre: (a) it uses a press release when it should use the full report and (b) it makes it clear that Teach First is unrelated to the London Effect. There are billions of things which are unrelated to Teach First and mentioning them all is not the role of an encyclopedic article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• This edit is inappropriate. It's a political opinion piece and can only be used for the current claims of the author and certainly not for the positions of their opponents. In also doesn't use the loaded word 'praised.' Stuartyeates (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• This ref is not independent, if you read the second half of the article it's clearly a PR piece from Teach First. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of all uncited material was tried before, and I think it really rather made the page seem restricted, if not partisan anti-Teach First. While secondary, rather than primary sources should be preferred, most of what I re-added of the unsourced material can be found in Wigdortz's book. see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_First&oldid=665238431 for such a version, I think in the absence of good sources for everything, a position of seeing the page as a work in progress should be maintained. As for my recent edits, I apologise if they don't meet your criteria for what should constitute an edit. For (a/b) the article to me does make a clear link that Teach First has been cited as a reason for the "London effect", whether it uses a press release rather than full article quite frankly means it's a Sunday evening and I'm not especially into looking very deeply into it. Secondly I was merely looking for a citation to remove a citation needed template, feel free to polish it as you see fit. Thirdly, clearly you have much more stringent ideas of what should be used as source material, and in what capacity than I (In this case, I don't really see why independence matters in this instance).Lacunae (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If most of the secondary sources are largely negative, then the article is going to be largely negative, as per WP:WEIGHT. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit requests

We are working for Teach First with the intention of refreshing our Wikipedia page.

I would like to suggest that we remove the paragraph mentioning a Toby Young. I would suggest that there's undue weight given to the situation, it is insufficiently sourced, and not significant enough for standalone coverage. Jb teachfirst (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)