Jump to content

Talk:Education in the United States/Archive 2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


happiness

happiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.123.94.23 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Education in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Education in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Issues

I would suggest adding information under curriculum issues information on the achievement gap and English language learners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.239.13 (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2005‎ (UTC)

I plan to expand this Curriculum issues section to include information about culturally-responsive curriculum in the US.

While the implementation of “Culturally-responsive curriculum” is controversial in the US, I think that it is extremely relevant and merits inclusion in the main “Education in the US article.” It is an issue that is the subject of much relevant research and debate within the education community and is often framed as a critical component in promoting the academic success of all students in the classroom. The topic of “culturally-responsive curriculum” is related to an existing Wikipedia article titled “culturally relevant teaching” that is currently unrated by both the WikiProject Education and WikiProject Psychology. This article does a pretty good job of laying out the theoretical foundations for culturally relevant teaching but does not at all address any of the efforts that have been made to turn theory into practice in the US especially with regard to specific cultural orientations like Gender and Sexuality Diversity (GSD)-inclusive curriculum, anti-bias curriculum, or ability-inclusive models.Hparten (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

After having reviewed this section, I would say that it felt very thorough in regards to the different types of culturally responsive curriculum that were covered. However, I would say that I thought a section on culturally-responsive curriculum in regards to race or ethnicity could've made the section a bit stronger. I thought that overall the section did a great job of balancing a neutral viewpoint on a topic that many view as highly politicized. The sources were also up to date, which is crucial with a topic like this that has a changing and evolving body of literature surrounding it. Jonathanpoilpre (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)jonathanpoilpre

Reversion by Kagundu

As I was reverted by Kagundu without explanation, I enquired as to why and, having received no reply, I reverted the reversion (as I have had to do in the past when not receiving a reply from this particular editor). Kagundu has reverted the edit once again with the edit summary "Read WP:MOS. Thanks." which in no way elucidates his or her rationale. Given that I do not want an edit war, I figure I should bring the matter to the talk page. The edits in question did the following:

  1. Moved wikilinks out of the boldface reiteration of the article title in the lede and to the first subsequent use of the terms per MOS:BOLDAVOID;
  2. Replaced "United States of America" with "United States" in the country_name field of the infobox as the latter term is the common name for the country and it is used by both the article about the country as well as consistently throughout the MOS. Additionally, MOS:INFOBOX provides that the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". As the country's full name is not used in the article (nor need it be), its usage in the infobox is in contravention of the MOS. Finally, this usage is consistent with other "Education in [country]" articles. For example, Education in France does not use the phrase "Education in the French Republic" in its infobox;
  3. Added a wikilink to curriculum per MOS:UNDERLINK;
  4. Changed "Education is compulsory" to "Education is compulsory" per MOS:EGG;
  5. Replaced the phrase "In most schools, education is divided into three levels" with "In most jurisdictions, education is divided into three levels" as the previous usage would suggest to someone unfamiliar with the American education system that the division takes place within a given school;
  6. Replaced curly quotation marks with straight quotation marks per MOS:CURLY;
  7. Replaced "John B. King, Jr." with "John King Jr." so as to conform with the title of the article on the subject as well as common usage;
  8. Removed unnecessary quotation marks from the term "ad hoc";
  9. Replaced "Reverend" with "the clergyperson" per MOS:HONORIFIC; and
  10. Replaced an inappropriate usage of {{confusing}} with {{clarify}} and uncapitalized the word "ONLY" in the rationale and removed the term "IMO".

Kagundu, on what basis are you suggesting that these ten changes are not in accordance with the MOS? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

All of your changes seem perfectly reasonable to me. I would reinstate them unless Kagundu gives detailed reasons why he thinks they do not follow the MOS.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Apparently we're going to have an edit war. I can see some good points on both sides. Why not try to work together instead of reverting each other? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean, Rick Norwood? I haven't edited the article since your previous comment – or since my first post to the talk page two days ago, for that matter. I have chosen not to edit the article while this is under discussion for the very purpose of avoiding an edit war. Additionally, how can you "see some good points on both sides" when we haven't heard any points (good, bad, or otherwise) from one side? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that Kagundu reverted your previous edit, without responding here on the talk page to the points you raised. I would like to see the two of you work together, if that is possible. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Graph on funding

The new graph on funding for K-12 education is meaningless. Of course the states with larger populations spend more, those will small populations spend less. Better a graph of spending per student. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Ages of various grades

The article has had a chart describing the age of children at the start of a given year; for example, 17-18 at the start of 12th grade. Recent edits have attempted to replace this with a figure for the average grade over the year, but used age 17 as an average over 12th grade, for example. Clearly if students are starting at age 17-18, the average age during the year cannot be 17. I have reverted twice now; please discuss here before further edit warring. Clean Copytalk 23:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Education in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Education_in_the_United_States/Archive_2017&oldid=887492933"