Talk:Duval County Public Schools

Listing of all schools?
Okay, so someone has added a list of all the middle schools. I suppose the high schools will be next, and the elementary after that. Is this really necessary? We have a link to the DCSB website, and they have listings of all the schools there. I recommend deleting this table from this article. Unschool (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is recommended that school articles begin as sections of district articles where they can be discussed in context of the other schools in the district until there is sufficient sourced material to justify a break-out article. If necessary, a break-out article could be made on Middle schools in Duval County Public Schools but I don't think that is merited at this time. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that's presuming that the article on the middle schools even meets WP:NOTE. I not only think that such an article fails to meet noteworthiness, I think it's not noteworthy enough to include in this article.  Furthermore, I think these listings will give a hopelessly cluttered look to this article.Unschool (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The table is a good idea. And yes, tables for high schools and elementary schools would be fine also. A school would start its life in the table; if there is enough encyclopaedic material it gets its own section; and if notability can be established then it gets a page.


 * It is a matter of personal preference but I would be inclined to put more interesting information in the table. One suggestion, would be to replace the 6th/7th/8th/Lunch columns with Grades/Established/Principal/Mascot. TerriersFan (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I believe that the table on the middle schools should be deleted. While I very much appreciate the efforts of DoubleBlue to increase the aesthetics of the listing by making it into a table, I still believe that a listing of all the schools in this manner fails to meet WP:NOTE, and I am confident that most editors on this project would agree. I'm still open to points that others may make, but at this time I'm leaning towards the deletion of the table. Unschool (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N is for articles not individual entries in an article; they just need to be sourced. Double Blue  (Talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is disingenuous. While technically WP:NOTE does not apply, the fact is, there are unwritten notability standards for content within articles.  I think we could both agree that, even if I could source it, it would not be noteworthy to indicate in this article that the current superintendent spent 23 months as principal at Stanton, 17 months as principal of Terry Parker, and 36 months as principal at Wolfson.  It just would be too insignificant to include. (I thought about looking up the actual schools and length of stay figures and actually placing them in the article, but am constrained by WP:POINT.)


 * Now I am not saying that this table is as insignificant as my example above. I am merely pointing out that your argument is fallacious.  Somewhere there is a line beyond which some verifiable facts lack sufficient weight for inclusion.  You and I may honestly disagree on which side of that line that this table falls, but surely we can also agree that there is such a line, I hope. Unschool (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that I suppose we are not all that far apart in our views but my reply above was simply to note that WP:N does not apply and that statement is perfectly true. Your statement saying the table should be deleted since it fails to meet WP:N is disingenuous and fallacious. Your rationale above appealed to a guideline that doesn't apply.


 * School boards exist to run schools so I think it is perfectly encyclopedic to list those schools and, even better, compare them. If individual schools have enough reliably sourced content, then they can even have their own sub-articles. There is already a rather useless navigational template at the bottom of this article listing all the schools in the board. Why not replace it with something more useful and informative to the reader? I favour TerriersFan's suggestions above as well on changing some of the headings. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, here's my suggestion. There are hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia articles that are lists.  There's even such a thing as a "Featured List".  Why do these exist?  I believe that it is because, in part, that it is recognized that they can clutter up the text of a normal article.  Currently, with just the middle schools, this hasn't totally destroyed the readability of this article.  But the logical conclusion of this process will do just that.  A listing of what—150 schools?—simply does not fit in with any article's "flow".  So why not just create a new page—List of Duval County Public Schools—and place these tables there? Unschool (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be fine but, to be honest, my only interest was in merging James Weldon Johnson Middle School and creating an appropriate place where other school information could be placed and permitted to expand till ready for break-out. Double Blue  (Talk) 21:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment there is no need. If the tables expand so much that they overbalance the page then we can look at a breakout. At present the page looks fine and splintering the information, for no good reason, is pointless. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, clearly the point at which "the tables expand so much that they overbalance the page" is a subjective matter. This is a relatively short article, and in my personal opinion, that point has already been reached.  In your opinion, it has not.  Given that you acknowledge that ultimately such a page is a reasonable step to take, I see no good reason not to do it now.  I'm not saying that it has to happen now, I'm saying that at least as much subjective good would be served by creating the separate list as by not.  I'm not saying that it has to be my way, I'm merely asking for acknowledgement that if the article remains this way, it is because it satisfies your personal tastes, not any particular wiki-standard.Unschool (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since DoubleBlue appears to have no objection, and as TerriersFan's objective is based only on his personal aesthetic, I think I'm just going to move this table out of here and create an article, List of Duval County Public Schools to place it in. Appropriately linked, of course.  I shall wait two or three days, just in case someone wants to comment. Unschool (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1969 accredidation loss
Why is there no mention or link of Duval county's accredidarion loss 41 years ago--Ipatrol (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We were waiting for you to do it. It's important, go ahead and do it. Unschool (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of text
I have removed text posted by User:Jacksonvilleresident for two reasons. First of all, the subject of the paragraph is not about Duval County Public Schools. If there were charges filed against a member of the school board, it would be relevant. As stated, the information wouldn't even be appropriate for an article on Betty Burney. In addition, the contribution did not cite any reliable sources, so it must be removed. Mgrē@sŏn 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Controversies" section
The following text was removed by an administrator. I felt it was relevant to the main article on Duval County Schools. However, if seems administrator feels this page should serve only to provide positive information about the subject. I feel that is outside the mission of Wikipedia. I thought this website and its content was to provide accurate information for its readers. If the information was incorrect, by all means, remove it. But the administrator's reasoning that, "This is not a page for news stories" is an obtuse and, in my opinion, biased way to limit relevant information from readers WHO MAY BE INTERESTED (thoughts?):

On April 13th, 2013, it was reported that towards the end of 2012, a teacher at Cedar Hills Elementary School had students in a 4th grade class write notes stating, "I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure." The students were then told to sign the notes. Aaron Harvey, a father of one of the students, found his child's note, written in crayon, and brought it to public attention. In response, Nikolai Vitti, current Duval County Public School superintendent stated, "The Justice Teaching activity on constitutional rights that was conducted at Cedar Hills Elementary School is consistent with our efforts to broaden civics-based education and develop critical thinking skills among our students. The lesson builds awareness of First Amendment rights through a partnership with an association of local attorneys. Our possible concern rests with a follow-up activity that may have been conducted after the lesson." Johnnytucf (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you're upset. However, your addition violated several Wikipedia policies. Most importantly, information is included in Wikipedia according to the due weight it receives in the sources. This article is about a decades-old school system; adding a substantial section about one single news item gives that item disproportionate weight. Even if it were, that story isn't even expressly about the school system, it's about an occurrence at one school in the system. Hardly something that should be covered here. Additionally, there's neutrality; your labeling the material as a "controversy" isn't neutral, as this didn't cause any substantial controversy and the story appears to have died down. Finally, there have been literally hundreds of news stories about the Duval County Public School system over the years, obviously we're not going to include lengthy summaries of each and every one. I hope that clarifies the removal for you.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What you said is fair enough regarding the weight of the story not warranting its own substantial "Controversies" section, but that was only added because there was not already a section there. As each individual school does not have a Wikipedia page, this was the only place for this information.  I looked at your link regarding due and undue weight, and the information I added did not present any sort of minority theory, nor do I feel it to be one-sided.  I gave the account of what happened and the superintendent's response verbatim.  It was a significant event that happened at a Duval County School that made national news.  It has historical significance as the event gives detail for our nation's present context from a historical perspective.  One hundred years from now, someone may be writing a paper about post-9/11 America and look for examples of how the country responded.  This story paints a picture of how we sought a balance between personal rights and public safety.  As for the word "Controversy" not being neutral, we must speak different languages.  In my language, "controversy," by definition, means up for debate or having two sides.  Therefore by labeling something as controversial, I am suggesting that there are two sides.  The teacher has a side... the parent has a side...Superintendent Vitti has a side... and apparently you and I also have sides.  Also are you saying that you removed it because the story has died down?  Public uproar over the accreditation loss has died down since 1965, but that information remains.  I'm just guessing here, but I bet you could look up a page about Newtown Elementary School and find information about the massacre, even though that story is no longer front page news.
 * I added a section of factual information, devoid of bias, which other readers may or may not feel is relevant. Basically, I feel it was a story that would be useful to anyone visiting this page.  It had bearing on the history of the Duval County School system, as well as the nation.  If there are other stories that add to that history, there should be no reason they should not be included as well.  If the information I added is not useful to the reader, they can skip it.  It does not cause any harm, either, as it is factual and cited.  I was not aware that wikipedia's mission is to limit information so that pages can be concise and pretty.Johnnytucf (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The addition was as neutral as possible. Labeling the addition of these facts regarding that school system it's as "controversy" was with the intent of remaining neutral. That is what "controversy" means. Some people think one thing, some thing another. Labeling it as "Indoctrinations" or "Brain-washing" would have been biased.
 * With regard to the "disproportionate weight" accusation, how many controversies are required to include a subsection? I have listed one. And created an opportunity for other community editors to add more. The removal of these facts only serves to suppress information from those who would be interested in reading about it.
 * Finally, saying that it was about a single school and not the district is just plain incorrect. The article cited includes quotes wherein the district supported the decisions and actions of that one school; which was the impetus for the widespread coverage and interest. Johnnytucf (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)