Talk:Sudbury school

message: Any problems with this model of school? - AmishThrasher 14:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as widespread as it should be. ;) Michael%Sappir 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: My main confusion over this page is why it is under "sudbury school" and not directly linked to under "sudbury model" where it seems, it would belong. One vote to move it over. Any disagreement? ZuG 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree, although I know there are some prominent voices in Sudbury schools in the States against considering anything to constitute the "Sudbury model". I personally believe there is a very real set of concepts that constitute the Sudbury model, and I agree the article should be moved. I'm just not strongly opposed to the way things are right now. Michael Sappir •  (Talk) 13:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: There's a lot of talk in this article about "classes."
I visited our local Sudbury school, and there are hardly any "classes" at all- just kids doing their thing. Maybe they have 1 or 2 of what we would think of as "classes" at all. But for the most part, it's like when you take a "class" by ... ...taking up a hobby, or something like that.
I'd like to know if my local Sudbury school is an exception or not. And I'd like to see some support for the idea that there are Classes at Sudbury schools.
So far, I have not seen it.
LionKimbro 21:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience with the schools is that when you have several students interested in studying a similar thing at the same time, then it sometimes becomes efficient to have a class for the subject. This is probably more common in larger Sudbury schools than in smaller ones, where a "class" might resemble tutoring when it occurs. Of course, each school is unique, and some may have a formal process for creating a "class", while others may disdain anything resembling a traditional class. - Aaronwinborn 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Broadly and generally speaking, classes really aren't a very central thing in Sudbury schools, but they do exist to some extent. In my experience it does depend on size but even more on the cultural environment of the school. Basically, when the students get the feeling - for whatever reason - that classes are a good way to learn things, you get more classes. Size matters because you usually only call it a class if there are a few people involved, but classes are not purely a function of size. False labeling can be misleading as LionKimbro suggests; I have met people in democratic education (but not from the Sudbury movement) who like to label as "class" everything kids do, in order to make kids realize that whatever they do is important and meaningful. This practice seems to me rather manipulative and I believe I am not alone in the Sudbury movement in feeling so (because I have never heard of a Sudbury school doing such a thing). Michael Sappir •  (Talk) 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classes? What classes? 

message: Clearly a Sudbury school is not the same as a school running under a vertical curriculum, but there can be overlaps. A vertical curriculum school being a school where there are only classes, but what is taught in them is dependent on what the classes are wishing to study. Not all students progress at the same rate, and so while mainstreamed students will still follow a 'normal' curriculum, slower or faster students will work with classes of equivalent experience. Campbelltown Performing Arts High School in NSW, Australia became such a school in 1995. There are others in Australia. I understand that Campbelltown no longer follows such a path. DDB (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertical Curriculum 

message: This article does not appear to cite a single source that is not either a Sudbury school, or a founder of one of the schools. This lack of third party sourcing means that (i) it is questionable whether the article presents a WP:NPOV of the schools (as it presents only the views of the schools themselves) & (ii) whether they meet WP:ORG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I managed to find one third party academic source (van Duyke) that involves field observation. Tsiaojian lee (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of third party sources 

message: Dear Hrafn. It looks like you are applying yourself to this article. What you are doing is truncating it. After you did it, it became worse than it was before. Instead of improving the article, the information it now conveys is distorted because it is lacking the main description of the features that characterize this model of education schools'. Third-party publications are very seldom if at all in this case, an maybe it was not as perfectly written as desirable but, at least it provided the minimum information needed to understand what these schools are, and what they are doing. I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia's most articles about schools. You will notice they are not better edited nor better based on third-party publications than this is. I think this way you are definitely doing a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers. Cheers, 94.230.83.239 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well rounded information about Sudbury schools 

message: Who blanked most of the content?  The thing can be improved, but blanking the content doesn't make sense, given the merger discussion failed. Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:V. Removal of unsourced content and/or content sourced in violation of WP:SELFPUB is not blanking. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's problems with the content.  Needs a rewrite.  But much of content removed meets WP:V. Removing it isn't the solution, and makes it difficult to properly attribute. Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "much of content removed" does not meet WP:V -- either because it is unsourced or because most of what was sourced was "based primarily on" sources WP:SELFPUB by the Sudbury schools. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: And I'm in the middle of trying to fix it ... and you still remove what I've just fixed? Nfitz (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because you were doing bulk restores of unfixed problematical material -- much of which I see you've since deleted yourself again (though still containing large swathes of unsourced/WP:SELFPUB material). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed ... have to restore it, before you edit. Some stuff wasn't necessary. I think that's a substantial improvement.  There's a couple of "self-published" claims left ... but they are about school procedures ... and isn't referencing school documents a good example?  Looking at Canada for example, I don't see anyone objecting to Government of Canada publications as being self-published! Nfitz (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: As long as the self-published material isn't excessive, about third parties or unduly self-serving (which doesn't seem to be the case, at least now that most if it has been trimmed), it should be fine. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Removal of uncited info after several months of it being  tagged is in line with WP:V policy. It's up to editors who want content to provide cites for it, not for others to do that legwork. DMacks (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

text: * User:Nfitz "is at it again", recreating a page from redirect without demonstrating that Daniel Greenberg meets notability guidelines (or even discussing the issue on article talk), in the process violating WP:Synthesis there & WP:BURDEN here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

text: * Disputed text is now edited and referenced. I wish editors would spend more time just fixing what needs to be fixed, rather than creating such drama! Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where on earth did the article go? 

message: * Improper closure. The closer should be someone who isn't closely tied to the debate. Particularily not the person who started the debate. Besides, there isn't enough voices heard ... relist for greater consensus. Nfitz (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Proper closure. (i) Merge proposals do not require a neutral party to close them. (ii) As it has already been listed at WP:Proposed mergers, there is nowhere (and no mechanism) to "relist" it. (iii) A 4-1 WP:CONSENSUS, after listing on WP:Proposed mergers, and neither new opinions, or any sign of wavering in old opinions for more than a week, is quite sufficient. Your complaint thus has no basis in policy. You simply don't like the result. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: *(i) Help:Merging DOES NOT STATE that "controversial mergers should have a neutral party to close them". "May"≠"should". "May" implies discretion. (ii) In any case, a lone dissent (no matter how obstinate and vocal) does not make a fairly clear-cut WP:CONSENSUS "particularly controversial". For your interpretation to be correct, the guideline would have to read "If the merger is not unanimous, one should take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

text: *Clearly the guidelines suggest that an impartial closer should be used. Your reading this like a legal document, obviously the language isn't precise for every situation ... but remember this is a community, not a legal document. Nfitz (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've now requested assistance; please let someone else do it to keep it clean. Nfitz (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

text: *"Clearly" if the guidelines had meant "should" they would have said "should". "Clearly" the guidelines "suggest" nothing of the sort! "Clearly" your idiosyncratic interpretation has no basis in the clear wording of the guideline. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I believe I have correctly interpreted the intent of the guideline. Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *And the ability of people to "believe" things that are demonstrably untrue has always flabbergasted me. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please remain civil.  Comment on the issue, not the person. Nfitz (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *You made your 'belief' the "issue" so I 'commented' upon it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

text: *24 hours since you posted on WP:AN, and no response -- which I think can be taken as administrative disinterest in the issue. Unless an admin turns up shortly, I intend to reinstate the redirect on the basis of the above WP:CONSENSUS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm an admin, I'd been hoping some newer face would pop up so I had not commented here yet. But anyway, the closure looks good. At this time, there was good support for merger. Dissent was "no, he is individually notable". But I agree that the burden of proof for his individual notability was not met. He is important in the context of this article, so merging some material from his page into this page (as it relates to this page) is appropriate in my view. DMacks (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint of improper closure

message: Sudbury Valley School is the first/model example of this educational philosophy/school type. That article's Sudbury Valley School#Educational philosophy and maybe Sudbury Valley School#Subtleties of a democratic school sections represent a substantial portion of that school's page and is well-cited from educational philosophy (and other) reliable sources. However, they are really about the school type rather than this particular school (specific example of this type). Sudbury school is about the school type, so I think this information is more appropriate here, with just a quick summary and wikilink in the actual school's page. Others' thoughts? DMacks (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If text lacks verification, please provide a suitable source so that it can be kept instead of complaining about removal of long tagged material. . dave souza, talk 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing any text on either page that is tagged!  Am I missing something?  Both pages seen extraordinarily well sourced, especially compared to the average Wikipedia article! Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another merger proposal 

message: I propose to merge Sudbury Valley School into Sudbury school because most of the content of Sudbury Valley School repeats the content of Sudbury school. Furthermore, Sudbury Valley School uses a great many words to say very little. 
I propose to put into Sudbury school the following summary of Sudbury Valley School:
The first Sudbury school was the Sudbury Valley School. It was founded in 1968 in Framingham, Massachusetts, and is still (2009) operating. The main school building is a large Victorian-style mansion. Other buildings have facilities for woodworking and other activities. The school is equipped with computers, which have access to the Internet.
The Sudbury Valley School originated the practice of choosing faculty and staff by an annual election (by secret ballot) in which faculty, staff, parents, and students may participate. Eighty percent of Sudbury Valley School's alumni have graduated from college.
I propose to move the section: ==Additional reading== from Sudbury Valley School to Sudbury school.
I will omit the list of staff per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
I propose to re-organize and improve the writing in Sudbury school. PYRRHON  talk   18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *If we had an article on "University of Chicago" which did almost nothing but talk about the "Chicago school of economics", I would likewise recommend merging the former into the latter. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Support per Hrafn: As it is I don't see the need for a separate article on the Valley school - the content isn't there.
I, Aunt Entropy, and Hrafn are in favour of the merger. Nfitz and LonelyBeacon are opposed to the merger. So, a majority favours the merger, but there is NO CONSENSUS to accept my proposal. Therefore, my proposal is REJECTED. The proposal by DMacks remains open for discussion. PYRRHON  talk   02:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Two