Talk:Skjærgårdsskolen

Questions

In editing the article, there were some things which I wasn't clear on. Starting with the first paragraph:

It would be helpful to have an English version of "Stiftelsen Portveien barnearbeid", Google Translate gives "Foundation Portveien child labor". Is that accurate or meaningful? What does Portvein mean? Is it someone's name? Does it relate to Portveien 2? Should barnearbeid be capitalized as a proper noun?
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, it says "Portveien Barnearbeid"; is that a short version of the full name "Stiftelsen Portveien barnearbeid"? It also says "the applied", should that be "they applied"?

I'd be happy to help make more of the article work well in English if I can ask more questions about the rest of the article. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 17:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think they mean child labour when they used barnearbeid in the name, since this implies that children work, which generally is not encouraged, at least not in so called developed countries. I rather think they ment that they work with and for children and did not think of the negative connotations which exists both in English and Norwegian. Portveien is a name and yes another faulty spelling. Your guess that it has to do with Portveien 2 is my guess also, I can't be sure though. Port is a gate or entrance and veien is the road. Portveien is the name of several roads in Norway and of several kindergartens so the TV program probably could not copyright their name and I guess anybody can use it. Stiftelsen is a non profit foundation regulated by Norwegian law as such, and not really part of the name. The correct name of the foundation is Portveien Barnearbeid. Although "Barnearbeid" is a word, it is here part of a name and mayby names should not be translated? Skjærgårdskirken/Skjærgårdsskolen also has meaning in Norwegian. Skjærgård is the skerries or the archipelago (of small islands and reefs) and most commonly used about the islands along the southern coast of Norway. (Skjær is a reef and gård is here a fence, which gives skjærgård the meaning fence of reefs and small islands, it has positive connotations and we often talk of this coastline as beeing friendly). Northern Norway also has islands along the coast, but the islands is a bit big to be part of a skjærgård. Adding Stiftelsen when writing Norwegian just makes it clear what sort of organization the name belongs to. I changed the citation and let the name stand alone. Stiftelsen needed to be translated. And yes it should be "they applied". I am very very happy that you are willing to help. For instance Gift of tongues as a translation of tungetale which I think is correct, but It is it clear to ordinary readers what this is or should it be better explained?. I will try to answer any questions you may have as well as I am able. -- ツ^ツ Dyveldi ☯ 19:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyveldi: Translation is a challenge. There is so much nuance in words that we're not even aware of. I think you're doing a good job. Gift of tongues is a fairly common phrase in American English and it's linked to Glossolalia which should explain it for anyone who doesn't know. Here are some more questions:

At the beginning instead of "Norwegian elementary school", would it make sense to say a "Norwegian religious elementary school"?
In a couple of places it refers to school starting in "autumn". Could we change that to August or September if that's when school starts in Norway? Seasons to describe times of year are discouraged because they are different in the Southern Hemisphere.
Does it make sense to say that Skjærgårdskirken is a church?
In English "working conditions" almost always refers to conditions at a job or employment. Is this the conditions for the employees at the school, or for the students?
Does "affirmative action" refer to Affirmative action? Or would it be better to say "positive plans"?

More later. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 19:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks to SchreiberBike.

Affirmative action is my mistake plain and simple. This is connected to working conditions for employees. I have tried to rewrite the legal language and inserted who charged them with the provisions. Pupils do work most certainly, but in this case it had to do with the teachers working conditions. The school were told to abide by Norwegian labour law.
Yes this is a church. Not a very big one, and at one point in time they had about 200 members, but I have only some figures here and there and too little information to give proper statistics. It is not a congregation belonging to a bigger church. The founding members have been connected to the pentecostal movement, but seem to want some distance. Again I have bits and pieces of information about the church and as yet too little for an article.
August is probably quite correct. I could not source this, but had only information of the school starting in the autumn. "All" schools in Norway starts in August though so I think it is safe to assume this school also started in August.
Educational systems across borders are notoriously difficult. Would a religious elementary school be basically the same thing as a public school with an exception for the religious teaching beeing added. They had to meet Norwegian public educational standards for levels 1-7. It was the mixture of this and an additional religous education that they were charged with clarifying what was what (although this provision was to clarify for the teachers how to do their jobs properly). If you feel that it is correct to call them a religious elementary school I won't object. I hesitated to add this characteristic because I was uncertain if this made them something different and less than or different from an elementary school.
Finances is always an important aspect when trying to understanding school systems. In Norway we have almost no schools that run without government funding. The parents will have to pay something for the child attending a private school, but the main financing is govermental. As far as I know this is in stark contrast to the US for instance where parents save huge amounts of money to finance their childrens education when they do not want to avail themselves of what the public has to offer. This is where this school got in trouble. when they could not account properly for the use of the government funding I rather think they had to close. I did not write this as I so far has not been able to source that they actually closed. They could have continued as they did not loose their licence to teach, but I doubt very much that the parents would have been prepared to pay the full cost. In addition to having trouble accounting for the use of government money they also got in trouble with Norwegian labour law. The criticism in the newspapers on the other hand was also about the religious content of the childrens education. This however did not lead to any goverment action and was not what got them in trouble with Norwegian law.

Regards. -- ツ^ツ Dyveldi ☯ 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyveldi:I did some more copy editing.

You're right about the confusion in different countries' educational system. In the US, a religious elementary school would not receive substantial government funding.
In the "Conflict at the school" section, it uses the word "routines". That word isn't usually used that way in American English; would guidelines, policies or procedures work there?
I changed "accounts" to "financial accounts" because accounts has multiple meanings. Was that right?

I think the article is looking pretty good and the story should be clear to readers. SchreiberBike talk 19:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is financial accounts.
Yes, routnes is wrong. Procedures is best I think as in this case they were charged with producing rules for how to do things in writing.
I lean towards staying with the elementary school as this school primarily was a private school substitute for a public school. Exactly what alternative teaching if any methods they presented to the governement I have yet to find out. Norway have seen some changes in the laws regulating private schools, but they are very strictly regulated. I would like to be a bit vague about the content and if this actually was a religious school the main content must have been much like the public elementary schools with some religion added, but they could have had an alternative pedagogy in the same way as a Rudolf Steiner School does.

I have found out when the school ceased teaching though and will make an addition about that. If I am late answering the next two weeks please don't worry. I will be sitting for an exam in something else entirely and will need to prioritize just a little bit. -- ツ^ツ Dyveldi ☯ 22:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]