Talk:Maplebrook School

Untitled

Wikipedia is not a public relations vehicle for the school. That kind of information can be found at Maplebrook's own website.

Do not delete entire entries and replace them with your own words without flagging a portion of the entry or first taking the dispute to this page. Wiffer (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am having some troubles making the citations I included work. Also, I have tried to correct the inaccuracies and insulting language of the creator of this page while not allowing this page to be used as an ad pamphlet. I have tried to limit the comments to facts, and not opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be so kind as tell me what was "insulting" or "inaccurate" about the original entry. It is curious that you provide no examples but simply delete what was written. That is a breach of protocol. Didn't you get the memo? You need to explain how the original entry was "deeply flawed" and used "hurtful language." Wiffer (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As it stands now, the article is inaccurate, states opinions as if they are facts, and unduly negative towards the school and its students. It appears that someone from Maplebrook has tried to reproduce their catalog, which clearly does not suit the purposes of Wikipedia. However, their efforts did have some important corrections and rephrasings. I have attempted to synthesize these two contributions while being as accurate as possible and allowing for room to grow as more information is added.

The following are some points with which I have issues:

1. “Substantial learning disabilities”. While not offensive as a group of people, Maplebrook does not agree with this assessment of the quality of students and you have provided no basis for this language. Maplebrook has increasingly focused on students with more minor learning differences as they foster an environment where students can strive to achieve a high school diploma and get enrolled in college. The Maplebrook Website describes its students this way:

“All students with learning disabilities are not alike. Each has a unique and complicated pattern of strengths and weaknesses combining to form an individual learning style. Many students arrive at Maplebrook with skills too weak to allow success in a traditional high school or post secondary education. Others are ready for high school level academics but learn best in a setting recognizing their individual learning styles and strengthening their particular academic skills.”

and

“Maplebrook School is a coeducational boarding and day school for students with learning differences and/or attention deficit disorder (ADD).”

By using the language “substantial learning disabilities” instead of “learning differences” you are not only using a negative word to describe the students, but you are also inaccurately describing the students at Maplebrook.

2. “The school was founded in 1945 with the financial backing of George and Serena Merck, heirs to the pharmaceutical giant, Merck & Co., who themselves had a son, Johnny, with developmental disabilities.”

While this is true, it seems odd to mention the financial backers of the project and not all of the actual founders of the school. Additionally, an omission of the reasons they founded the school, beyond the personal one you mention, seems unwarranted.

3. “Significant learning and behavioral disorders”. See comment 1 above.

4. “With an annual tuition of about $49,000[citation needed], a small endowment and a limited financial aid budget, Maplebrook primarily attracts students from well-to-do families.” What makes an endowmend small? The school has seen unprecedented growth in the endowment and funded many improvements to the school. The transformation is noticeable and remarkable. The endowment has allowed that. The opinion that it is small seems unnecessary and inaccurate here. Perhaps you can do the research and cite what the endowment actually is. With regards to a limited financial aid budget, this is either a truism or unnecessarily negative. Every financial aid budget is limited. To what extent is Maplebrook’s? What evidence do you have that it is limited in comparison to other schools of its size and type? Finally, why do you mention that most students are from well-to-do families? What is the proof of this? It seems like another opinion that is unneccessary and negative.

5. “40 percent obtain…funding…through their local school districts.” Is there a cite for this information? This should be included once the information is verified.

6. “Some students advance to higher education and a few have earned four-year college degrees. But for most, the goal after Maplebrook is to live independently and hold down a job.” While true, this seemed negative to me. However, because it is factually accurate I included it in my revision.

7. “Maplebrook's primary admissions competitor in the northeastern United States is Riverview School.” Is there a cite for this? This piece of information seemed a non-sequitur, but if confirmed I guess it isn’t horrible to include.

8. “Roger A. Fazzone, a former administrator at Dutchess Community College, has been president/headmaster of Maplebrook since 1988.” While not technically wrong, this is just slightly misleading. Donna Konkolics is the Headmaster of the school now and has been for several years.

The current version of this page is not horrible, but it’s not ideal, either. The potentially negative undertones (and overtones) are unnecessary, the inaccuracies should be fixed, and the irrelevant opinions should be deleted.

My attempt to synthesize the one that is currently there with the one the school wrote tries to strike the right balances of objectivity and accuracy. I also hope that we can achieve a skeleton upon which other contributors with useful facts can add to this entry. For this reason, I propose the following:

“Maplebrook School is a small boarding school in Amenia, New York, that serves adolescents and young adults with learning differences. Choosing to remain small, the students live and study on the approximately 100-acre campus. Maplebrook School was founded in 1945 by Serena Merck, Marjorie Finger and Sunny Barlow. These women were pursuing a vision of superior education for youngsters who learn differently and endeavored to created a disciplined environment where academic achievement is valued. Maplebrook's goal is to create a community which values the individual, nourishes trust and confidence, promotes respect and understanding, and encourages participation.[1] Maplebrook has grown over the years from a very small institution to one that serves approximately 120 students in three programs. Maplebrook School is accredited by The New York State Association of Independent Schools (NYSAIS) and The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools.[2] Some students advance to higher education and a few have earned four-year college degrees. But for most, the goal after Maplebrook is to live independently and hold down a job.” However, I am not an expert on Maplebrook and would open to expanding on the themes mentioned as long as they are done in an objective and useful way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Because nobody has contested my arguments, I plan to introduce the changes I outlined here. LedRush (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem unusually sensitive to honest language. Strange. Maplebrook accepts students who are borderline MR (IQs between 70-90). That means their learning disorders are "substantial" by any reasonable assessment. The word "disability" is widely recognized as accurate. It is not intended to be negative, nor is any of the wording or facts elsewhere. The Learning Disabilities Association of America [1] still uses the term and they are as careful not to offend as anyone I know.

I worked at Maplebrook for several years. Donna Konkolics never actually ran the place, as is evident to everyone except, perhaps, you. I could go on and on but it isn't really worth my time and effort. You are determined to put up a nice sanitized version of a troubled institution, and that's fine. Hopefully, some of the visitors to the Maplebrook entry will review the edit history or venture to the discussion page to get a better sense of the place.

Wiffer (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, after reviewing your edits, I can only conclude that you work for the school. This reads like a catalogue piece. I'm afraid you labor under the illusion that prospective parents will swallow this whole. Any moderately sophisticated reader will see this for what it is -- the kind of stuff that is better suited to the school's website than a Wikipedia entry. Frankly, it reflects poorly on the school -- which I'm sure is the farthest thing from your mind. And to top it off, all your footnoted sources come straight from www.maplebrookschool.org or Fazzone himself. Can't you find anything else?

These women were pursuing a vision of superior education for youngsters who learn differently and endeavored to created a disciplined environment where academic achievement is valued.

Really? Is their vision currently being carried out? I guess there's nothing about that in the school catalogue, eh? And how about this:

There are 32 teachers at Maplebrook, allowing for personalized interaction between students and teachers due to a student/teacher ratio of 4:1.

How many have master's degrees? How long is the average stay? Unfortunately, you fail to answer reasonable questions any visitor to the entry might have because of your shameless boosterism and your desire to only put the school's best foot forward.

Wiffer (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms

If you feel there are any peacock terms, please mention them here and we'll fix them.LedRush (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire History and Goals section is peacock in nature -- way too flowery and not the least bit objective. Wiffer (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Goals are, by definition, aspirational.LedRush (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

Please point out the POV issues so I can remove them from the article. I have already done some vetting, but most of the article is just a description of the services similar to descriptions of other institutions.LedRush (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can "adolescents and young adults with learning differences" in the opening sentence be replaced with "adolescents and young adults with learning disabilities" (or at least piped to link there, if you feel that language isn't PC)? "Learning differences" is not very descriptive, especially without any link, and when I first saw it I was scratching my head for a moment trying to figure out exactly what was meant. I believe "learning disability" is a more standard and widely accepted term. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the link you've asked for, but kept the old language. "Learning disabilities" has fallen out of favor with institutions that provide this type of education because it is seen as both stigmatizing and very negative, though use of the term does remain somewhat acceptable in everyday life. "Learning differences" is seen as the "appropriate" or preferred way to describe this, now.LedRush (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good to me. By the way, the 2 refs I took out of the infobox, I took out because the same information was presented with sources in the main body of the article...I don't remember the official policy off the top of my head, but I think if stuff is sourced in the body of the article then the ref doesn't need to be repeated in the infobox. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good...I'll revert.LedRush (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)