Talk:Sturgis Charter Public School

message: The following section was added to this article, and while containing valid opinion is clearly not NPOV.
:"Frankly, Sturgis stands as a shining example of the how the charter school system is supposed to work. Sturgis Charter Public School offers alternatives to main stream public education that otherwise would not be available area students. In short, the Sturgis community seeks to work in concert with other area schools to raise the collective standard of education for all. Sturgis is not a threat to the improvement of public education, it is a contributor to it."
Perhaps it should be adapted to a section dealing with positive opinion regarding the school. Ultimaga | Talk 02:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The current revision provides a number of arguments against the school while labeling responeses to those criticisms as those by "apologists." As the article stands, I do not believe it is neutral, nor even balanced. Ultimaga | Talk 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I don't like the part of the article that states "Sturgis Charter School has yet to produce a student who qualified for the IB diploma." If you've done your homework, you'd understand that it takes five-six years minimum for a school to even become authorized to offer the IB diploma program, and then it takes another two-three years to fully implament it. I graduated from Sturgis in 2005, and my class was the first class to be allowed to sit for IB exams. Because it was implimented in what would have been my second year of the IB program (my senior year) my class couldn't go for the full diploma, only sit for the SL exams (HL exams mandate 2 years of study to even sit for them). Had the school OPENED a year or two earlier, this might not have been the case and the program would have been implamented in the 2002-2003 or 2003-2004 school year, and thus there would be students who have earned the diploma. There are several current seniors at SCS that are likely to earn the IB diploma. Màglor 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sturgis: READ PLEASE

message: Unless the IBO has significantly changed their procedures since I read in the IB program requirements, a condition for a school to apply for the diploma program is five years of continuous opperation. The time for the application to process, including site visits by IB personnel, takes a year after this five year requirement, and the program cannot be implimented until the academic year AFTER approval (authorisation to present candidates for examination) is granted. I say it takes two years to fully impliment because students who are graduating seniors at the time of implimentation cannot complete the full program unless they stay another year. It's all on http://www.ibo.org Màglor 01:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Source of Information

message: Sturgis Charter School, in its own internal and external corespondance uses Commonwealth (British) English (i.e. organisation, authorisation, colour, etc...). I was completley unaware that any IBO documentation was using American English, because the mission of the IBO is to allow students to foster truly international education, and the rest of the English speaking world uses Commonwealth and not American English. (Notwithstanding, the department that writes the English language exams and worldwide (not region specific - this is in New York) documentation is in Cambridge, UK. 
The offical word from the school administration was that a new candidate for becoming an IB world school had to be in opperation for five years. I double checked the regional application requirements and regulations, and I will concede that there is no offical mention of a five year opperation requirement in order to apply. The offical rule states that a school must take no less than six months to investigate the program, spend at least one acadmic year planning to offer the program, and an additional year to conduct site visits and complete the application. However, it should be considered that these requirements are apparently for schools that had been opperational for some time already, and Sturgis was opened with the intent of becoming an IB world school at its outset. The candidcy committee might have ruled that they needed to wait five years and become established as a school before they could apply. This application took place in the schools 6th year of opperation (2003-2004) and authorization was granted with the program begining for the 7th year (2004-2005) If you wish to read the actual document with the timeline, its at http://www.ibo.org/ibna/educators/documents/03DPGuidetoSchoolapplication.pdf and under the heading Timetable for the application process. Please stop refering to me and other supporters as 'appologists.' I'm an almunus, and although I think the way Sturgis implamented the IB program with respect to the class of 2005 was very poor, I generally support the school, its mission and use of the IB program, and my only intent is to describe the facts considering the school to the best of my knowledge and inerpretation and its not some lost cause that I'm trying to make excuses for it.
Also a question if you don't mind, did you attend or have any connection to Sturgis or are you someone who just has watched and researched the school?
Màglor 01:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Specific Source and Orthography

message: I see someone took down the majority of this article. I wrote what I hope is a neutral section on the IBO, no critism, no praise, it only shows what the IB is and how Sturgis offers it. Màglor 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay

message: I took nothing down. I brought up the article to see if anyone responded to my last message on the talk page and I noticed anything that wasn't proven fact was removed. I added back a section about the IBO because whoever took down most of the article also removed any refrences to the IBO. I have a feeling it was an Admin, I'm not sure.... perhaps because no agreement could be reached on neutrality in this talk page. 
Notwithstanding, I'm getting rather tired of this. The purpose of Wikipedia is to tell things as they are for the furtherment of human knowledge. If you were the one that put the "controversy" section back up (and correct me if I'm wrong), I'm begining to believe you simply want to use Wikipedia as a sounding board to express your discontent with Sturgis Charter School. Intelligent discourse concerning the school is certinally a good thing, but there are more appropriate places for that than the actual content of a Wikipedia article. This isn't something I want to get into a huge argument about, but I personally believe that some of the observations you are making are very baised.
Addittionally, what authority are you proporting these claims on? How are you related to the school, are you a student, an alum, a teacher, board member, etc? 
Màglor 04:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Um Not Okay

message: Okay whoever you are. I'm going to admit that some of your points are valid and are noteworthy, whether I agree with them or not. Notwithstanding, I reworded a few things to attempt to restore some neutrality, and in some cases added counter arguments where none existed to maintain a ballanced pro-con point of view. Màglor 04:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alright

message: Two weeks ago, you argued that the entire article should be eliminated as "non-notable." Today, you are informing the world about the school's lunch and attendance policies. Time to get serious.
I agree that the article needs work, but until you fact-check and focus, I am reverting the article to an earlier version.
-I admit I shouldn't have tagged the article for deletion, edit wars piss me off. Màglor 04:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Is Not An In-House Newsletter

message: You restored your own non-neutral version. To the people it matters most, the truth about the school is evident and known. You have a beef with the school, that's fine, I quite frankly don't give a damn. There are better places to express your discontent. By the way, it's not promotion, unless you consider promotion to be the clauses that attempt to ballence some of your baised critisim of the school.  Peace, Màglor 04:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: In between the ad hominem attacks and edit wars, could somebody please add something to this article clarifying who runs it and what the governance structure is? --Orange Mike 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governance 

message: Please review WP:SOAP. 71.124.245.135 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A disgruntled former student uses Wikipedia as soapbox

message: It's noteworthy because it's a competing list of high schools. The Oscar's is not an awards ceremony for high schools.
This not about a list of things Sturgis is not -- It's a list of top high schools that chose not to include Sturgis.
I stand by the inclusion of the US News list in the article, but am certainly open to the input of other editors.
== It is relevant =-
The fact that Sturgis isn't in the US News list is relevant as it puts the Newsweek rating in context -- one publication thinks it's top 60 in the country -- one doesn't think it's top 40 in the state.
If one is relevant, so is the other.
It's similar to the fact that it's relevant that George Bush lost the popular vote in Election 2000. This adds context to Sturgis' victor in Newsweek  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not complicated 

message: If it isn't relevant that Sturgis was left out of a competing list, then it isn't relevant that it was included in the Newsweek list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the US News list isn't relevant