Talk:NEST+m

207.200.116.70 opinions
The following was added to the article today by 207.200.116.70. Since it's personal opinion at best and original research at worst, it can't go in the article. But if someone wants to isolate and chase down the facts and add them to the article with supporting citations, go for it! RossPatterson 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The leadership transition at NEST+m has affected the three levels of the K-12 school in different ways. The Lower School is largely unaffected with the exception of some teacher grumbling about details such as excessive paperwork, the extended school day, and very reduced staff development.


 * The Middle School, which is largely comprised of District Two students the old administration poached to District One, is an exceptionally unified group of students, parents, and teachers who last year set the gold standard for school sprit. Their unified, vocal teachers filed the initial group of UFT grievances against the new administration. (Now nearly three-quarters of the NEST+m faculty have filed UFT grievances.) The Middle School students are working very hard to have their voices heard and are appealing for a return of curriculum pieces they have lost such as the Middle School Model, the Advisory System, many rich electives, and a challenging science curriculum.  But many of the Middle School students also have the luxury and comfort of knowing that they can return to their District 2 schools, should “things not work out at NEST.”
 * The division among the three levels of parents at NEST+m created an environment where Lower School parents (and who would blame them?) feel no obligation to support the Middle, or especially, the Upper School. For the moment, the K-12 commitment has crumbled and time will tell what other big changes lay ahead for the new NEST+m.

Wikipedia standards
I understand that parents, administrators and students of Nest+m are passionate about their school, and that there are partisans for and against the founder.

However, this article as it stood violated a remarkable number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It was written in a highly partisan and non-encyclopedic tone. A very large number of subjective, unquantifiable statements have been tagged for months as lacking source citations, and were clearly original research, which is disallowed. At least one sentence ("Following further investigation many of the administrators of Nest were either fired or demoted, because they were not qualified to do their jobs") gives a citation (New Explorations Into Science, Technology and Math (NEST+M)) at which there is nothing that relates to it.

Speaking as a 3 1/2-year editor of Wikipedia, I would ask that anyone doing further edits please read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly those that involve neutral point of view, verification by reliable sources, and no original research or soapboxing. Please note that the Wikipedia policy on self-published sources precludes partisan, privately published newsletters such as "Save the Nest".

Additionally, please note that Wikipedia policy regarding talk pages is that they be used for discussion of article improvement only, and not as a general forum for discussing the topic &mdash; hence, the removal of three inappropriate unsigned posts here.

Please look to the Stuyvesant High School article for an example of a NYC public school article done to the Featured Article standard. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment
While doing revisions, someone should do a better job of putting in a physical street address. I just added it, but I'm not sure if what I did is in the correct format. But better some info than none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.179.235 (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)