Difference between revisions of "Talk:School"
m (Reverted edits by FactFinder (Talk); changed back to last version by Philip J. Rayment) |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:Ok, I'm going to add the first, but I'll leave the second out until someone else can evaluate it. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:47, 17 September 2007 (EDT) | :Ok, I'm going to add the first, but I'll leave the second out until someone else can evaluate it. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:47, 17 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
::I've found the same FAQ on a different site, so I've used that instead. It may not be much better, but it's a little better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 19 September 2007 (EDT) | ::I've found the same FAQ on a different site, so I've used that instead. It may not be much better, but it's a little better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 19 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Public School == | ||
| + | The intro paragraph says ''"A public school is an atheistic school funded by taxes and which censors classroom prayer"'' Later, the section on Public School says ''"In America, a public school is a state school. In some Commonwealth countries, a public school is a church-run (i.e. run by a church denomination) school that is open to the general public. In America, the curriculum in public schools is dictated by state governments and increasingly by the federal government under the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Federal courts generally prohibit any type of prayer led by school officials, and even forbid the display and teaching of the Ten Commandments."'' I think the sentence in the intro paragraph needs work, as clearly (according to the section on Public School) there are places where public schools are NOT funded by taxes, are NOT atheistic, and/or do NOT censor classroom prayer. Frankly, I think the paragraph on Public School clearly explains things, and we don't need the sentence in the intro. I won't be so bold as to remove it, as it was added by [[User:Aschlafly]], but I think it needs improvement. Let me be clear that I am not taking issue with the *content* of the sentence (that's a different discussion); rather I think that combined with the information in the Public School section it is redundant and confusing. Sorry to be so blunt - I'm sure [[User:Aschlafly]] is a busy man and didn't realize this information was covered later in the article. This is otherwise a well-written article.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:25, 28 October 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:25, October 29, 2007
My rewrite
With no disrespect to the good edits of the previous editors, I felt that the changes were still not adequately describing the situation and that it couldn't be adequately described without a rearrangement. I hope people (still) like it now. Being not very familiar with the situations in other places, I've made some assumptions in the rewrite, so please jump in and correct what I've done. Philip J. Rayment 20:18, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
There's no reference to prove that homeschooling is becoming more popular.--RogerMy 15:53, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
- Then add a {{fact}} tag, and wait for a bit. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 15:54, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Obviously or this place would not exist.--Will N. 15:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
- Erm... most of the edits are made by non-homeschoolers now, Will. And the citation is needed for the "an increasingly popular alternative"... who says it is becoming more popular? --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 15:59, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
References
I apologize for the poor referencing last time. I hope these references prove to be more acceptable. However, I thought it might be wise to check first:
Reference for "citation needed" #1 ("increasingly popular alternative"): http://nces.ed.gov/nhes/homeschool/
Reference for "citation needed" #3 ("parents choose homeschooling due to..."): http://www.hsnp.com/gok/faq.html
Add the references to the article if you feel they're justified, or just say so and I'll add them myself. Feebasfactor 19:57, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
- Ok, I'm going to add the first, but I'll leave the second out until someone else can evaluate it. Feebasfactor 18:47, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
- I've found the same FAQ on a different site, so I've used that instead. It may not be much better, but it's a little better. Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Public School
The intro paragraph says "A public school is an atheistic school funded by taxes and which censors classroom prayer" Later, the section on Public School says "In America, a public school is a state school. In some Commonwealth countries, a public school is a church-run (i.e. run by a church denomination) school that is open to the general public. In America, the curriculum in public schools is dictated by state governments and increasingly by the federal government under the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Federal courts generally prohibit any type of prayer led by school officials, and even forbid the display and teaching of the Ten Commandments." I think the sentence in the intro paragraph needs work, as clearly (according to the section on Public School) there are places where public schools are NOT funded by taxes, are NOT atheistic, and/or do NOT censor classroom prayer. Frankly, I think the paragraph on Public School clearly explains things, and we don't need the sentence in the intro. I won't be so bold as to remove it, as it was added by User:Aschlafly, but I think it needs improvement. Let me be clear that I am not taking issue with the *content* of the sentence (that's a different discussion); rather I think that combined with the information in the Public School section it is redundant and confusing. Sorry to be so blunt - I'm sure User:Aschlafly is a busy man and didn't realize this information was covered later in the article. This is otherwise a well-written article.--Hsmom 21:25, 28 October 2007 (EDT)