Talk:Education in California/Archive 1

Homeschooling
"A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution."

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1111

AThousandYoung (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

master plan crumbing?
Any citation for the Kevin Star comments about implications of CSU Ed's marking a shift in the CA higher education landscape?

article title vs. article contents
the article is entitled "Education in California," but there is no mention of K-12 education or demographics with regard to education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.163.60 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Kind of a stub. Little long to be labeled that, but definitely needs more info. I was disappointed. I had hoped to use it as a model for another state. Better than most states, though! Student7 (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Trying to hide!
Can't seem to "hide" template which may be a distraction to some readers. Can anyone help? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

CBEST
I think that linking the page for the CBEST would be good on this page, but it doesn't fit here anywhere. Any ideas on how to shoehorn it in? &mdash;Goodtimber (walk/talk) 03:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. This article, Ed in Calif, is still in its infantile stage. Just start a new section on Elementary and Secondary schools above the colleges. Introduce the section is some manner and then link to cbest. A couple of sentences are okay for now. A lot of work needs to be done but we're "50%" ahead with your new section already!  :) Student7 (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Livermore question
"I question whether this last sentence should be there or not. Wikipedia says the school owns the lab BTW. But this is off the topic of Education IMO, and into "administration" for the government. Great in UC's article, but off WP:TOPIC here." was added as a comment. Placing it here without holding an opinion.- Sinneed  23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agreed and tried to remove the sentence which was irrelevant and off WP:TOPIC to this articles which is on educating not running a cyclotron for pay. Merely a commercial venture. Putting it here is perhaps WP:PR or even WP:SPAM for those activities. Quite proper in college itself. Yet you reverted it. Why? Student7 (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this needs coverage in the body... if the wp:RS believe this detracts from education and should not be part of the education system. I won't war over this, but wp:AGF.  I did cut the comment, as it assumed bad faith and did not belong in the article, in my opinion.  I won't war over that either.  I will drop this page from my watch list, as this is clearly an issue you have strong feelings about, and I will defer to your strongly held opinions.  All the best.-  Sinneed  16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it wasn't immediately clear to me what this discussion is about, I am quoting the article section that I believe is the subject of this controversy: The University of California also administers one national laboratory directly for the United States Department of Energy: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The university indirectly manages Los Alamos National Laboratory through Los Alamos National Security, LLC and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory through Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC.

This statement is unsourced, but I believe it is true, at least in part. I am not sure that it is correct to say that UC "indirectly manages" Livermore and Los Alamos. UC formerly managed both of them directly, but they are now managed by LLCs, and it's not easy for outsiders to determine how much control any of the partners in an LLC have over the LLC. Formerly, both Livermore and Los Alamos were directly managed by UC, and that historical relationship has been controversial. Information about those contracts clearly belongs in the article about the UC system. Before undertaking serious discussion about whether this information also belongs in this article, I propose that it would be desirable to have a source (or sources) for them. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my remarks have distressed Sineed from editing.


 * Orlady may be correct in saying that control may not be there and so is irrelevant to the article for another reason. I will defer to another researcher. But all large colleges nowdays have commercial enterprises. Let's face it, a "grant" is an enterprise, but may lead to research and education benefits. Or not. But whatever Livermore is, it does not provide an educational opportunity for Californians. That is my reason for wanting it omitted here (but not in the college article).


 * It would be if a college was owner of a enterprise that manufactured widgets. The widget enterprise would be mentioned in the college article, but not under "education in california" or "divorce in california" or any other inappropriate article. Student7 (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Add new section on budget crises, controversies common to multiple California public universities?
The information is scattered among sections of articles for specific schools or coverage of specific protests, and the "Master Plan for Higher Education in California" page is pretty empty too. I think a neutral and complete view of education in California should include information on funding and changes in funding through time, summaries of current complaints/grievances/etc in the system, and efforts underway to fix it. It seems the only edits on this page are when someone eventually reverts spam from an online for-profit college trying to insert itself. Devangel77b (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
Information to be added or removed: I propose adding the below text to the K-12 section of the page:

California ranked 32nd in the nation for educational performance, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2018 report. It earned an overall score of 72.6 out of 100 points and a grade of C. By comparison, the nation received a score of 75.2 or a C.

California posted a C in the Chance-for-Success category, ranking 38th on factors that contribute to a person’s success both within and outside the K-12 education system. California received a mark of C-minus and finished 32nd for School Finance. It ranked 22nd with a grade of C-minus on the K-12 Achievement Index.

Explanation of issue: I believe this text would enhance the page, adding information on the quality of the state's K-12 education which is not currently available on the page. I'm asking your consideration because I work for Education Week. I apologize if I've misformatted this or left out information you need to make a decision - I'm rather new at this.

References supporting change: this is the source I'd cite: Csmithepe (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Csmithepe

Reply 11-FEB-2019
Regards,  Spintendo   21:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source unconnected to Education Week for this claim.

number of years in elementary, middle, and high school?
I came to the article to find out how many years California students spend in elementary, middle, and high school respectively. This information is not in the article. Pinkslimo (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)