Talk:Accelerated Christian Education

message: No matter how good this study is, it shouldn't be quoted the way it is here. It cannot be corrected or rebuffed effectively. For example, banning the "peace" symbol is not a "paradox" if one understands that some consider it satanic because of it's pagan roots. Saying that "creation science is not science" can be rebuffed. At the very least, it's an hypothesis. Creation science doesn't claim to offer a model. matturn 13:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've gone through the statements that I believe are well founded and those that are debatable, see  User:Blarneytherinosaur/Sandbox, but I still haven't come up with a better way to present the information. I think it will need to be rewritten in encyclopedic style summarising the criticisms and citing the study as a reference. That way we can add new or contradicting information from other sources without compromising the integrity of the quotations. Blarneytherinosaur talk 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Berliner study

message: My personal bias is very much against a curriculum like this.  However, the tone  this article takes in its present state is excessively critical.
Certainly the long excerpts from published works need to be pulled, for copyright reasons if nothing else.  Criticisms deserve space, but this is not the place for an extended diatribe about brainwashing by the Christian right. --Saforrest 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that the article is not NPOV, the way to restore NPOV is not to remove sourced material from reliable sources.  Rather, the way to restore NPOV would be to find reliable sources to add to the article which balance the article.  In other words, while your effort in your sandbox is commendable, it is misguided.  If you think the article is unbalanced, the way to address it is to add reliable sources with oppossing views.-75.179.159.240 20:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs NPOV-ness 

message: I removed outdated information on Dade Christian School. I am a member of DCS and have never pledged not to draw, wear, or display in any way the 'peace' symbol. It is not in the student handbook and I in fact know someone who wears the symbol often and has never been punished for it to my knowledge.--Jorfer 22:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dade Christian School 

message: As a former teacher in a school that uses A.C.E. School of Tomorrow materials, I can tell you that students are encouraged to read ALL the classics. These include The Diary of Anne Frank, Shakespeare and Mark Twain. As for Dr. Seuss, most children in A.C.E. schools are usually far beyond those books and read such things as The Little House Series in the First and Second Grades. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.105.166 (talk • contribs). (moved from the article)
There are many problems with the study quoted in the article. It's being there is a copyright violation at the least and I am going to remove it NOW. You will still be able to find a copy here if you need to reference it. Blarneytherinosaur talk 08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a former student, I can tell you that these books - Othello, Catcher in the Rye, etc. were not part of the curriculum.  I can also tell you that the students I went to school with all learned to read in public school and that those who didn't learn to read in public school remained poor readers the entire time I was going to school (4th grade til high school graduation).  Blarney, I readded some content, but most of it (over half) was cut.  I think you were a bit too severe in your removing content and it resulted in poorly representing the overwhelming percentage of studies which are critical of ACE.-198.97.67.56 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed your addition because much of it is likely outdated. Dade Christian School was an ACE school according to that study, but Honors Senior English read Othello this year. --Jorfer 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "likely outdated" is not a reliable source.  If it is outdated, provide a source.-75.179.159.240 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid the burden of proof is on proving that a 1986 study is still relevant.--Jorfer 21:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its not.  The burden of proof is on a person making a claim(this comes straight out of Wiki policy).  The only claim made in quoting the Berliner study is what the Berliner study said.  The only person making a statement as to whether or not it is still relevant is you - therefore it is up to you to source your claim.-75.179.159.240 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote from WP:V:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
--Jorfer 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'm not going to debate this with you.  Wiki policy is very clear.  I have readded the content because it is properly sourced from a reliable source.  Your contention that it is out of date is what is not sourced.  I am readding the content as your removal is unjustified.  If you care to create an RfC on this issue, I am willing to go that route.  You are trying to get an edit war going, however, and I will not be a participant.-198.97.67.57 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Blarney, I don't think you read the earlier post.  The issue is not that you cut out a large section of the Berliner study.  Looking over it, it looked to me like it could, in fact, be cut down without a significant loss.  It was only being pointed out that, in cutting the article down, you threw the baby out with the bath water - which is why -some- of the article was brought back (though still a far cry from all!)  As soon as Jorfer's attempt at an edit war dies down and we can restore the article to the edit before his last edit, you and I will be of one mind regarding the Berliner study - I think. -198.97.67.57 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no comment as to why the content I've recently added is being deleted - other than an unsupported claim that it may be "out of date".  Continued removal of it is strongly suggesting an intent by a number of editors to disregard Wiki policy regarding NPOV.  Before I bring the issue to arbitration, I'm here giving people an opportunity to defend their actions.-198.97.67.59 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: btw, an article was written in Phi Delta Kappa called "ACE Responds" in response to the critical article listed here.  I do not have access to that article and such articles need to be accessible to the general group of editors on Wiki before it can be put in the article, however, if one of you wants to take the time to see if there is a source for the article which is accessible, it would help back up the pro-ACE side of the article.-198.97.67.57 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Obviously you cannot tell the difference between the requirements for including information in Wikipedia from the ones governing removing it."  Because nowhere is such a relevant distinction made in Wiki policies.  Again, please familiarize yourself with Wiki policy.  The link to the left of your screen marked 'Help' should be of some assistance to you.-75.179.159.240 02:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the Berliner study

message: Is there any data for just why they removed, say, Othello, or are the reasons just the standard reasons people oppose the book--if they are not specifically sourced, they should be removed. Is Mice and Men such a high school standard that its absences is notable?  In the other direction, I made link for the correct spelling of Pilgrim's Progress, but what are the others, exactly? are they notable enough to be in WP? DGG 04:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reading list

message: I think Jorter has resolved the problem with the out of date tag. DGG 20:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ood

message: I'm currently attending an A.C.E. school and would like to say my experience is bittersweet. My school does not have sports teams, dances, and various other things that public schools have. This is an issue that I have to deal with every year, but I still attend this school because its educational system is actually quite impressive. I grow up in a place where the public schools are very poor, and attend a A.C.E. school where our teachers actually do care about us and know Geometry (which my teacher was there 24/7 explaining it every step of the way.) Honestly, I guess the quality of education depends upon the area the school is in. This education is purely dependent upon how much your child wants to learn, if you think that your child will slack off when he or she is responsible for his or her own work then do not bring your child to this school! Cheating is very easy to do in these schools, things happen like students forging signatures in their P.A.C.E.s, circling pages with red pens, cheating on Self Tests (the practice test of the P.A.C.E.,) and even the stealing of Score Key pages! Make sure to constantly ask teachers about your students progress, because some of them will wait to the final two weeks of the quarter to tell you that your child has to complete two more P.A.C.E.'s (which normally take a little under 2 weeks.) If your child is attending a school where he or she has 8 or less weeks in a quarter, then make sure that he or she is doing 6 pages a week in each P.A.C.E. (excluding double P.A.C.E.s which have a reading P.A.C.E. along with an Activity P.A.C.E.) This school doesn't really strike me as just a Protestant school, it's definitely favoring the Baptist church. It includes beliefs like in Jesus' first miracle, he turned water into grape juice (instead of wine.) Your child will usually test in before attending this school, this will determine his or her P.A.C.E number, a P.A.C.E. number is basically the level of work your child is at (the higher the better.) If your child is not bringing in homework for multiple weeks when attending an A.C.E. school, then he or she is probably too low in his or her P.A.C.E. work. Ask the teacher if your child should be doing more pages in the P.A.C.E a day, or if he or she is far enough in his or her work. Make sure the school isn't to conservative, because Arts are not mandatory for A.C.E. schools, your child's soul might be sucked dry, it would be great to make sure he or she is involved in extra curricular activities (such as community sports, instrument lessons, photography classes, dance classes, etc.) Also be as involved as possible! My  A.C.E. school just started in 01' so parents are constantly making suggestions that actually are being used by the teachers, such as a praise band, art classes, and P.E. Make sure that you ask the principal about the resume of the Teachers, in some A.C.E. schools they'll throw brand new barely-passing graduate students that attend the youth program at the church.
 Hopefully this was helpful, sorry for the lack of grammar or neatness of that big slab of text, but I'm really tired. 
P.S.- Someone should really talk to the A.C.E. board about Othello being ruled out in schools! Especially if their reason is interracial marriages! Classic literature is definitely needed in schools, and Swiss Family Robinson is just dull...
:With all due respect, if the grammar you demonstrated in that post is representative of the level of education at your school, there's much that seems to be lacking.-198.97.67.57 18:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this talk page is not a blog, discussion group, or internet forum , and your experience, however interesting,  doesn't constitute a reliable source that can be used in the article. As someone attending an ACE school, perhaps you would be in a position to help the article by adding some verifiable sources or adding  tags to any statements that you think are untrue. Thanks — DIEGO talk 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experience 

message: As this is to be a nuterally informitive article and not a forum for debate on young earth creationism vs evolutionism course descripions ought to be much broader than those presented. Its well to say that they belive in a young earth based on the Christian Bible but it is not the only thing they are teaching. I suppose if someone must lodge a complaint concerning their beleifs within this article it at least must be placed in a seperete Objections section, seperate even to the critisism of education reserchers section. This would do very well especially because it could provide a certin, solid place for critisims concerning views of gender. 
I have made an attempt at generalizing an nuteralizing the article, mostly through puting prespective on statements. 
It is also imporant to not that there are only rough guidelines as to how to run an ACE school, schools in general diverge considerably in how they implement this. The philosiphy of the founder by no means dictates the philosiphy of each individual school. Simalarites for sure, but rarely identical. 
To reiterate, for this to be nuteral complaints concenring the beleifs of the founders need to be presented in a section seperate from a review of their curriculum. The fact that any of us disagrees with young earth creationism isnt really on key with what we should be trying to present.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlalynet (talk • contribs) 
:You just changed things to support the ACE point of view. An example is when you said "While some speculate the change is due to a moral offence to the state booklist such as sexuality the most sensible explination would be that since ACE is an independent curriculum they would choose their books independently." That sentence is difficult to understand because of its unclear grammar, contains misspelled words, and most importantly expresses only your own opinion. I've reverted the article to its previous state.
:Also, in response to your proposal, neutrality is a function of the statements made in the article and how accurately they represent attributable views on the subject, not of the section layout. Perhaps the article should be reorganized, but a reorganization should be motivated by making this a clearer, better-written article -- not motivated by a point of view. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  05:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrality and Disagreement. 

message: <quote>specific references that can be verified should to be added; books mentioned are secular, no reason why they would be in a religious school)</quote>
The specific references can be verified (via the sourced reference) and were added.  I have no idea what relevance the fact that the books mentioned are secular has to do with anything.  "no reason they should be in a religious school" is your POV (and not a POV shared by many - for example, math and science are also secular, should they, too, be removed from ACE?)  Your POV shouldn't influence the article.  If, however, you can find a reputable source who agrees with you, then put that source in the article.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot verify this source, Quoted in Speck & Prideaux, 1993, p. 284, what is this and how can I verify this without proving it is made up? What is entered doesn't seem to be an exact quote. This needs to be verifiable. Please see Citing_sources. Don't undo peoples edits when the information isn't properly entered or being disputed. Knight1000 (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unclear as to what the issue is.  All the info needed to find the article is here (it took about three minutes to find it).  Go to your local University library and request this article.  -198.97.67.58 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no identification this was a journal article. The reference isn't per wiki guidelines and unclear. The wiki reference doesn't even give the journals name or article title. Also, the article looks like it's referencing schools in Australia which may not be applicable to schools in all country's. The wiki entry didn't say anything about that. I going to see if I can request the article and verify the information. I have no problem with verifiable entry's, but disruptive editing hurts the article and wastes readers time. Please review how to enter citations properly, which would have allowed me to find the source in the first place your saying the information is from. Knight1000 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem confused as to what your role is as an editor of Wikipedia.  Deleting material until -you- personally verify it isn't the way Wikipedia works.  Certainly, by all means, verify any sources you find questionable.  But the simple fact that -you- haven't personally verified all sources in an article doesn't mean that the material should be removed even temporarily.  If other editors add content and source that content, then the presumption is that they have verified it (at least until proven otherwise).  That's what Wikipedia being a collective effort is about.  Also, I believe you skipped the part in the citing sources section which states <quote>If you do not know how to format the citation, provide as much information as you can</quote>  This implies that poor citation is not, in itself, a good enough reason to remove content.  Removing content is done when content is challenged and the challenge isn't met.   In the future, before removing content for bad citation, it would be more productive if you raise that challenge in the talk pages (that is, after all, what the talk pages are here for) and give other editors a chance to respond.  -198.97.67.56 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am confused. As of yet, I haven't reviewed all recent edits. Looking at past edits, I find the statement in question appears, and then it's added to, added to, and then the citation appears. Shouldn't that all happen in the reverse?.........odd Knight1000 (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  It may have been a new editor figuring his/her way around.  Of the 500 or so posts in the history, which posts should I focus on to see what you think is odd?  Oh, and while you're checking out the article's history, you might find the history of the talk pages from the same date might shed some light.  (That's one of the reasons its a good idea to discuss contentious issues in the talk pages first - it helps to solve riddles down the road.)-198.97.67.56 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knight1000's edit

message: I am trying to get information facts on different christian curriculum available for homeschoolers.  Does anyone have recent studies comparing gpa of the homeschooled child with a christian base with other types of homeschool curriculum?  Either way, I feel it important to be a teacher to my children.  I am of lower income and a vocational degree, and I want to be able to raise my children with my husband not a public school.--Jandreau (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't think this belongs in the talk page (the talk page should focus on the article), I think its merits a response.  Depending on where you live, there are very good homeschool programs available through your local or state government.  The only thing "Christian education" may offer in addition to this is the instilling of values you and your husband feel are appropriate - but I don't see why you'd need special curriculum for this, nor do I see why you'd -want- special curriculum for this (since such curriculum was created by somebody else who probably doesn't share your family values - "Christian" covers a broad range of values from Catholic to Quaker to Apostolic to Landover Baptist.)-198.97.67.56 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian based homeschool 

message: Maybe I missed it, but it would be nice to know which educational philosophy/ies ACE supports.  See Philosophy of education#Educational Philosophy for details.  I know the content is Christian, but is it Classical?  Essential?  Perennial?  Outcomes-Based?  I presume the method of teaching is Autonomous Learning?  
-- TimNelson (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational philosophy 

message: If statements that may be prejudicial to the subject or organisation under discussion do not have appropriate verification or citation, why are they permitted on Wikipedia? This would seem an attempt to establish a biased view in the reader without any need for appropriate intellectual integrity, would it not? 124.187.42.137 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability and Citations 

message: This article needs some serious work.  First and most importantly, this article is almost completely based on information published by the subject of the article itself.  Reliable secondary sources are necessary to verify the claims made in the article.  Secondly, the article includes a lot of content that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; detailed information about each and every class and step in the educational process is information overload.  Thirdly, the article smacks of a biased point of view, and I have no doubt that people associated with the organization have had a heavy hand in writing this article.  I've placed appropriate templates on the article.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with these comments. Most of the article strikes me as verging on product promotion -- so I've changed cleanup templates to reflect that. I believe that much of the detailed material about specific features needs to be taken out (or perhaps summarized in a single paragraph). Cgingold (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of serious work 

message: She used the wrong statistics.  I don't have her data but it's likely considering effect size that the differences would be meaningless.  Also, the Bob Jones study would definitely confounded by choice of school.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.192.54 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  college student study 

message: The department of education in Denmark closed Samuelsskolen (a school in Copenhagen) due to the use of this curriculum. I was wondering where high school graduates from a school using this curriculum can continue their education. Are the diplomas accepted by all colleges and universities or do they have to choose certain schools for their continued education?Covergaard (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credits? 

message: I removed the following recently-added paragraph from the main article:
It is important to realise that the content critisized is at times taken out of context. ACE is severly against evolution and anything like it, so the conflicts people have with the system are not always in the hope of creating a better system, but to dirty the name of ACE. Some of the following have no grounds for conflict, while others do. Take each statement with a grain of salt.
Terrek (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good-faith Edit Moved to Talk for Discussion 

message: The section about ACT scores really needs a look at and edit. Is an unpublished (available on college website does not equate to published) graduate thesis a reliable source that deserves so much space in the article? I understand the limitations of the thesis are discussed in the article, but those huge limitations (findings based on 32 students' results from one school?!?!?) set alarm bells ringing for me. The author of the original article makes no claims about the generality of the findings, and so as this article is not a comparison of schools in West Virginia I do not see what meaningful information this source can add to the article - it seems to me the material relating to it should be minimised or probably completely removed. 
Aside from that the section consists largely of lines lifted straight from the article, no paraphrasing etc. I am not well versed in Wiki guidelines for editing, so have not yet performed any. Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.58.204.27 (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In correcting the citation for this thesis my thought pattern did start down these lines. The thesis has been cited by other works. A reliable source reviewing existing primary data and these citations may evidence the scholarly influence of the publication. --Wednesburyunreasonable (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational outcomes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Accelerated Christian Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070512075639/http://www.aceministries.com:80/curriculum/core/curri_core.aspx to http://www.aceministries.com/curriculum/core/curri_core.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070603014556/http://www.aceministries.com:80/curriculum/testingmaterials.aspx to http://www.aceministries.com/curriculum/testingmaterials.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Accelerated Christian Education. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://schooloftomorrow.com/footer/contactus.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://schooloftomorrow.com/aboutus/statementfaith.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aceministries.com/aboutus/TimeLine.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.schooloftomorrow.com/aboutus/whyace.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705033036/http://www.aceministries.com/training/admintraining.aspx to http://www.aceministries.com/training/admintraining.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please can editors (particularly editors with single issue edits, or IP addresses linked to the company) refrain from removing neutrally worded criticism from the lede. I respectfully remind all editors that MOS:LEAD clearly states “All but the shortest articles should start with Introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more. The lead has no heading; its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs.” qv.
As one can see from the overall article page, carefully cited criticism is a significant part of this subject and should not be removed, as it is the aim of the lede to give a balanced overview of the topic. Mramoeba (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing criticism from the lede 

message: Where information is supported by reliable sources can single purpose account editors WP:SPA please not remove it in an attempt to remove uncomfortable or controversial information. The company's own website is not an independent or reliable source for information, we use secondary and tertiary sources which assess it, including reliable news media and academic works which have assessed the impact of educational outcomes. Removing reliably sourced material is not removing bias from the article, it is simply whitewashing it. I also remind editors who may have a conflict of interest WP:COI and those accounts created for a single purpose to refrain from editing and gain a broader editing experience before removing material they are unsure of. Mramoeba (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In relation to my last two edits, is anyone else seeing the same problems I listed in my edit summaries? That is to say extraordinary/general claims based on a single account, and reliability problems in relation to using the Heartland Institute as a source for, well, any claim, respectively? Eik Corell (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  And paid content on blog sites. Mramoeba (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing information from the body of text 

message: Hi Wikipedians
If necessary please review my edit.
* Amended dead link: Archived from http://www.marshall.edu/etd/masters/kelley-lisa-2005-ma.pdf
* Cominbed with existing:  http://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=etd
This citation has been updated to the correct template.
Potential issue: The mds.marshall.edu URL target preference for citations is to here whereas the current link is direct to the generated PDF.
Discussion regarding the suitability of the content is in this section above.
--Wednesburyunreasonable (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified - duplicate citations combined