Talk:Sturgis Charter Public School

Untitled
The following section was added to this article, and while containing valid opinion is clearly not NPOV.
 * "Frankly, Sturgis stands as a shining example of the how the charter school system is supposed to work. Sturgis Charter Public School offers alternatives to main stream public education that otherwise would not be available area students. In short, the Sturgis community seeks to work in concert with other area schools to raise the collective standard of education for all. Sturgis is not a threat to the improvement of public education, it is a contributor to it."

Perhaps it should be adapted to a section dealing with positive opinion regarding the school. Ultimaga | Talk 02:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
The current revision provides a number of arguments against the school while labeling responeses to those criticisms as those by "apologists." As the article stands, I do not believe it is neutral, nor even balanced. Ultimaga | Talk 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
Wikipedia is being used to promote an institution which has been and continues to be the subject of serious controversy. A neutral, balanced POV requires both sides of the argument for and against the school's current direction. How else may the reader form his or her own opinion?

Before deciding that "apologist" is a loaded term, consider the meaning of the word. According to Wiktionary, an "apologist" is "one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution..." How is this term inaccurate in the present context?

Not NPOV!
The following entry makes a number of assertions unsubstantiated by fact or attribution:


 * It is incorrect to compare Sturgis Charter Public School with International Academy-West. In the state of Mass charter schools must take all children and can not screen for academics, learning disabilities etc. International Academy-west clearly states on their web site the students must have already taken Algebra I and must take placement tests prior to being entered into the lottery. One the most unique aspects of Sturgis is it's determination to bring high level rigorous academics to all students regardless of their previous academic record. '[This is an opinion as well as a 'non sequitur': Sturgis, in fact, exempts students who do not meet certain pre-requisites from having to sit for IB exams.] '


 * At this time Sturgis has five IB examiners on staff, a large number for such a small school and many other staff with extensive IB experience. The reality is that the founders misunderstood the IB program and wrote the charter in a flawed manner. Most IB schools do not require all students to attain the full diploma. In virtually every IB school there are students who just sit for certificates in individual courses and those who sit for the full diploma. The IBO has been unable to name any other school allowing all students to take the program with absolutely no prerequisites. The current Board of Trustees has been able to rectify the original well meaning, but poorly written charter through the charter amendment provisions in Mass Charter School law. The school is in complete compliance with the law and it's charter. '[The claim that the founders misunderstood the IB program or "wrote the charter in a flawed manner" is simply the opinion of the author of the entry. The charter, as originally approved, specifies that ALL Sturgis students sit for ALL IB exams. Regardless of the practices of other IB schools, there is nothing inherently naive, mistaken, or flawed in that requirement.]'


 * It is also untrue to say that there are no external measures of the school's teaching methods. In each year of it's existance Sturgis students have scored higher on State MCAS tests then any of the districts they came from. '[MCAS exams are administered to high school sophomores; Sturgis is a four-year high school program.]'

Sturgis: READ PLEASE
I don't like the part of the article that states "Sturgis Charter School has yet to produce a student who qualified for the IB diploma." If you've done your homework, you'd understand that it takes five-six years minimum for a school to even become authorized to offer the IB diploma program, and then it takes another two-three years to fully implament it. I graduated from Sturgis in 2005, and my class was the first class to be allowed to sit for IB exams. Because it was implimented in what would have been my second year of the IB program (my senior year) my class couldn't go for the full diploma, only sit for the SL exams (HL exams mandate 2 years of study to even sit for them). Had the school OPENED a year or two earlier, this might not have been the case and the program would have been implamented in the 2002-2003 or 2003-2004 school year, and thus there would be students who have earned the diploma. There are several current seniors at SCS that are likely to earn the IB diploma. Màglor 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sturgis: Source of information?
Where is confirmation of the claim that "it takes five-six years minimum for a school to even become authorized to offer the IB Diploima program, and then it takes another two-three years to fully implement it"? What is the source of this information? Specifically, who has told you "five-six years"?

The current Wikipedia entry for Sturgis refers to at least one new school that is recruiting freshmen for an IB program that will be put in place by the time they graduate. A review of the IB website reveals a number of new schools world-wide that have implemented the program by the time the schools graduated their second class.

Re: Source of Information
Unless the IBO has significantly changed their procedures since I read in the IB program requirements, a condition for a school to apply for the diploma program is five years of continuous opperation. The time for the application to process, including site visits by IB personnel, takes a year after this five year requirement, and the program cannot be implimented until the academic year AFTER approval (authorisation to present candidates for examination) is granted. I say it takes two years to fully impliment because students who are graduating seniors at the time of implimentation cannot complete the full program unless they stay another year. It's all on http://www.ibo.org Màglor 01:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Specific Source?
The link provided leads to the IBO website, but not to specific information relating to a "five year requirement" of continuous operation. "It's all on..." falls short of a useful citation.

Furthermore, the IBO did not require a five-year waiting period in 1996-1999, the period during which the school was researched, designed, chartered, and opened.

Finally, perhaps someone could shed some light on a curious phenomenom. Several years ago, the IBO recognized the preponderence of American schools participating in the program by adopting the orthography of American English. For example, "International Baccalaureate Organisation" became "...Organization," spelled with a "z" ("zed") not an "s."

For some reason, apologists for Sturgis Charter Public School continued to favor the spelling conventions of British English when referring to the program, retaining until recently the "s" in "organisation" and even now "authorisation" (see above entry). Why is this?

Re: Specific Source and Orthography
Sturgis Charter School, in its own internal and external corespondance uses Commonwealth (British) English (i.e. organisation, authorisation, colour, etc...). I was completley unaware that any IBO documentation was using American English, because the mission of the IBO is to allow students to foster truly international education, and the rest of the English speaking world uses Commonwealth and not American English. (Notwithstanding, the department that writes the English language exams and worldwide (not region specific - this is in New York) documentation is in Cambridge, UK.

The offical word from the school administration was that a new candidate for becoming an IB world school had to be in opperation for five years. I double checked the regional application requirements and regulations, and I will concede that there is no offical mention of a five year opperation requirement in order to apply. The offical rule states that a school must take no less than six months to investigate the program, spend at least one acadmic year planning to offer the program, and an additional year to conduct site visits and complete the application. However, it should be considered that these requirements are apparently for schools that had been opperational for some time already, and Sturgis was opened with the intent of becoming an IB world school at its outset. The candidcy committee might have ruled that they needed to wait five years and become established as a school before they could apply. This application took place in the schools 6th year of opperation (2003-2004) and authorization was granted with the program begining for the 7th year (2004-2005) If you wish to read the actual document with the timeline, its at http://www.ibo.org/ibna/educators/documents/03DPGuidetoSchoolapplication.pdf and under the heading Timetable for the application process. Please stop refering to me and other supporters as 'appologists.' I'm an almunus, and although I think the way Sturgis implamented the IB program with respect to the class of 2005 was very poor, I generally support the school, its mission and use of the IB program, and my only intent is to describe the facts considering the school to the best of my knowledge and inerpretation and its not some lost cause that I'm trying to make excuses for it.

Also a question if you don't mind, did you attend or have any connection to Sturgis or are you someone who just has watched and researched the school?

Màglor 01:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay
I see someone took down the majority of this article. I wrote what I hope is a neutral section on the IBO, no critism, no praise, it only shows what the IB is and how Sturgis offers it. Màglor 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Really Okay
Removing content (extensive content, developed over time, supported by discussion) without explanation is indistinguishable from vandalism.

The boilerplate gleaned from IBO publications is already available elsewhere in Wikipedia and readily obtainable from the IBO website.

A KEY point buried in this information is that Sturgis trustees and administrators do not require any particular student to take any particular exam or any exam at all, yet they claim to be using rigorous internal and external assessments.

If all Sturgis students are enrolled in a combination of supposedly higher- and standard-level IBO courses, then why aren't all students taking the external IB exams? The school remains controversial and the controversy of interest because the school obtained its charter on the basis of requiring ALL students to take ALL exams, and now requires NO student to take ANY exam. No public explanation for this change has ever been offered.

The opinion that Sturgis is a "growing and learning community" contributes little to the store of human knowledge.

Ironically, Sturgis offers the IBO course known as "Theory of Knowledge," although apologists for the present incarnation of the school seem uncomfortable with rational argument versus bald assertions or self-serving hyperbole and "happy-talk."

Re: Um Not Okay
I took nothing down. I brought up the article to see if anyone responded to my last message on the talk page and I noticed anything that wasn't proven fact was removed. I added back a section about the IBO because whoever took down most of the article also removed any refrences to the IBO. I have a feeling it was an Admin, I'm not sure.... perhaps because no agreement could be reached on neutrality in this talk page.

Notwithstanding, I'm getting rather tired of this. The purpose of Wikipedia is to tell things as they are for the furtherment of human knowledge. If you were the one that put the "controversy" section back up (and correct me if I'm wrong), I'm begining to believe you simply want to use Wikipedia as a sounding board to express your discontent with Sturgis Charter School. Intelligent discourse concerning the school is certinally a good thing, but there are more appropriate places for that than the actual content of a Wikipedia article. This isn't something I want to get into a huge argument about, but I personally believe that some of the observations you are making are very baised.

Addittionally, what authority are you proporting these claims on? How are you related to the school, are you a student, an alum, a teacher, board member, etc?

Màglor 04:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mundane Details, Indisputable Controversy
How is human knowledge furthered in this entry by re-publishing information already available through a link to www.ibo.org? Or squelching all references to the controversies that have dogged Sturgis since its inception, controversies well-documented in school records, DOE minutes, and local newspaper articles.

If a reader believes that specific statements lack a basis in fact, then that reader should so note on the talk page. So far, claims that the school was required to wait five years before applying for IBO accreditation or that the charter was naively written have been revealed as unsubstantiated.

If the Wikipedia goal is maintaining a neutral point of view while publishing verifiable, previously published information, then why would a contributor's relationship to the school matter?

I'm getting sick of this
I don't think you get it, your point of view isn't neutural. You're using this article as a f***ing sounding board, because for whatever reason you have a serious problem with Sturgis Charter (Public) School. If you don't like the school, that's fine, save it for the talk page or the blog, there are more appropriate places to put that. The fact the school is contraversial is whatever it is. You're not showing this controversey in a neutral way, you're using it to advance your own agenda. If you CLEARLY showed both sides of the argument, that would be fine, but you don't. I have a different approach and that's to leave out what we can't agree on. I didn't take down all the non NPOV text the first time, I did reveret the article when you added it all back however. I don't agree with many of the statements you make, and I'm fairly sure you don't have all your facts straight, that's why I asked how you were related to the school.

For the record: I wasn't trying to reduplicate what the IB article said, I was trying to show how it applied to Sturgis. And who gives a damn wether the school mandates all students to write six IB exams or not. It should be the student's ultimate decision with the parent's influence, and the school should simply provide the opportunity.

Wikipedia Policy
I'm quoting wikipedia policy, under a document called "What Wikipedia is Not." You can find this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.

Think about it.

Let's Stay on Task
"This article has become nothing but a sounding board concerning one user's discontent with this non-notable school. The user's statements are either not factual (i.e. completely oppnion or speculation) and the ones that might be even somewhat valid are very biased and not NPOV. All attempts to change this article into a neutral positive representation of the school have been altered by this user, and reasoning with him or her becomes a battle of finger pointing - see the article talk page."

1)Non-notable school? The article contains a number of reasons why the school is notable, including the high rank given its charter application, the controversy over the school's deviation from that charter and how it occurred, as well as your own claim that Sturgis was among the first schools in Massachusetts to seek IBO accreditation. In addition, Wikipedia has a list of high schools in Massachusetts, with a growing number of entries. Why is this school suddenly non-notable?  2)What specifically is nonfactual? Completely opinion? Speculation? Provide an example, rather than a general indictment, if you would like to see a statement re-worded or eliminated.

3)Isn't a "neutral positive representation," by definition, a non-neutral representation?

4)The approach of "leaving out what we can't agree on" is not NPOV. It's NO POV.

NPOV
Because this discussion is taking place on Wikipedia, I feel that the same site will suffice in demonstrating that the word "apologist" is not necessarily a neutral term:


 * Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight.

There are many other words to choose from (such as "proponents", "supporters", "spokespeople", "defenders", etc.) without such a negative connotation, and their replacement into the article will help in restoring its neutrality.

NPOV Need Not Equal PC
"Apologist" may be politically incorrect, but it is rhetorically accurate in ways that "proponents," "supporters," "spokespeople," and "defenders" are not. The entry in Wikipedia is carefully hedged; the entry in Wiktionary is more to the point. An apologist makes a reasoned argument in favor of a proposition, philosophy, approach, or institution, just as a critic judges that argument. The terms you suggest fail to convey that dimension of reasoned argument. They also mislead: A "spokesperson" is understood to be speaking as an official representative; a critic can also be a "proponent."

Alright
Okay whoever you are. I'm going to admit that some of your points are valid and are noteworthy, whether I agree with them or not. Notwithstanding, I reworded a few things to attempt to restore some neutrality, and in some cases added counter arguments where none existed to maintain a ballanced pro-con point of view. Màglor 04:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Basic Research Lacking
Fundamental facts are in error, calling into question your purpose in altering this article.

Contrary to your assertion, the first principal of Sturgis Charter School was Susan Trafton.

Contrary to your assertion, Sturgis's original charter, as approved by the Massachusetts Board of Education, did not require Sturgis students to qualify for an IB Diploma in order to receive a Sturgis diploma. The charter merely required all students to try.

Until you research your "facts," you should not present them as history.

Still Not NPOV
The article as amended by you lacks balance. Your "rewording" attempts to submerge serious issues in a sea of promotion.

Wikipedia Is Not An In-House Newsletter
Two weeks ago, you argued that the entire article should be eliminated as "non-notable." Today, you are informing the world about the school's lunch and attendance policies. Time to get serious.

I agree that the article needs work, but until you fact-check and focus, I am reverting the article to an earlier version.

-I admit I shouldn't have tagged the article for deletion, edit wars piss me off. Màglor 04:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
You restored your own non-neutral version. To the people it matters most, the truth about the school is evident and known. You have a beef with the school, that's fine, I quite frankly don't give a damn. There are better places to express your discontent. By the way, it's not promotion, unless you consider promotion to be the clauses that attempt to ballence some of your baised critisim of the school. Peace, Màglor 04:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, count to ten, then...
...take time to read over your comments on this page, review Wikipedia policy, and examine the nature of your contributions to this article. Study the school's charter (perhaps read it for the first time), then consider whether your viewpoint is truly neutral.

Sturgis remains controversial because of continuing attempts, yours now among them, to distort the basic indisputable, verifiable facts of its history, contained in its founding documents, minutes, newspaper articles, State Auditor's report, etc. By disseminating misinformation, you have become part of the problem.

If you disagree, try citing where exactly in the original charter students are required to earn an IB Diploma in order to receive a Sturgis diploma. (In the spirit of TOK, how exactly do you know this?)

You have more than once referred to naive errors in the original charter as a reason for abandoning the charter's promises to the community, yet you have repeatedly fabricated or failed to source those errors.

Without doubt, the article can be improved, but not in the ways you have attempted. Make certain of your facts, consider their significance, then make an informed contribution.

This is fun, but who are the players?
Fun back and forth!

Clearly we have a former student of Sturgis, someone who spent four years there, liked the place, and now feels compelled to defend it.

And in the other corner... who?

Former teacher?

Former principal?

Former board of trustees member?

Current teacher/principal/BOT member?

Oooh, this could get juicy!!!

Seriously, unless you give some indication as to your connection to the school, you're losing all of your credibility.

Good job winning those pointless semantic arguments though!

Credibility
Since Wikipedia does not require contributors to verify their identities, discriminating readers know to evaluate content by other means.

For example, there is no proof that a contributor making the equivalent of adolescent cat-calls on a discussion page is, in fact, a "sturgisteacher," just because he or she adopts that username. Readers weigh the likelihood of that claim--versus the consistency, logic, and utility of the contributions made under that name--and come to their own conclusions.

The effort to create a balanced, factual entry for Sturgis Charter (Public) School has attracted the interest of both vandals and Wikipedia administators. So far, without exception, the administrators (largely anonymous) have upheld the entries that the vandals have attempted to remove. Is there a better test of credibility?

Who are you?
I am a current Sturgis teacher. I have nothing to hide. You are still avoiding the subject altogether. Who are you? Based on my overwhelmingly positive experience at Sturgis, you clearly have an ax to grind. I simply want to know why.

Please forgive my use of "adolescent cat-calls"; I am sarcastic by nature.

Who are you?

The Subject...
...is Sturgis Charter (Public) School. If there is factually incorrect information in this article, please feel free to question, edit, or delete it, but kindly share your rationale.

Who are you?
Clearly you're avoiding the subject of who you are and why you have an ax to grind.

So be it.

You are well spoken and couch your words carefully to be neutral. Nevertheless, the tone of your postings, and your defense of your postings, is clearly anti-Sturgis. You have every right to hold those opinions. Don't bother asking me to cite your negativity, because tonal quality is based on perception and connotation, and I can clearly not give concrete examples of those qualities.

The founders of Sturgis (who I could not name and have never met) did not seem (my perception, not fact) to have a good grasp of the IB program. Every junior and senior takes IB classes exclusively. They have the option of earning a full IB diploma, IB certificates in specific content areas (both of which also earn a standard Sturgis diploma), or earning a standard Sturgis diploma by itself. They choose a path, it is not imposed upon them.

How many students take AP classes and then forego the AP exams? Any? This is not a direct parallel because every AP school that I have heard of also offers non-AP classes. Sturgis offers no alternative to IB classes. It seems to me that it would be a terrific waste of money to have every student take every IB exam if they don't want to. Simply taking the IB courses, without taking a single exam, still provides the students with an opportunity for a better education than any other high school in the Cape Cod area, and I would daresay one of the best educations in the state.

The class of 2006 took an average of 4.3 IB exams each. We will not know the results until July. I do not know if the following information is publicly available, but I know several things to be facts: 1. any student in the class of 2005 that wanted to take the IB History exam was able to do so 2.  every class of 2005 student who attempted the IB History exam passed it 3   students in the class of 2005 scored an average of 4.55 out of 7 on the IB History exam

I do not have facts to detail the scores for other content areas, so I will not mention them.

Good luck with your crusade to harm the reputation of Sturgis.

Reality Check
1) As a publicly funded school, Sturgis owes the public--including any subset or individual member thereof, however skeptical or critical--answers to reasonable questions regarding how Sturgis is spending public money. Criticism comes with the territory. Adults should recognize this and not lapse into ad hominem attacks. Nor should they assume that their individual viewpoints are complete or exclusive.

2) Sturgis was founded to carry out the mission set forth in the school's charter application; however, that mission--established through public involvement--has been set aside without either public explanation or the opportunity for public input. (With Orwellian ease, what was a "requirement" became a "goal," then an "ambition," then "evidence of the founders' well-intentioned, but flawed understanding.") Questioning "how" the mission was altered and "why" is both legitimate and reasonable.

3) Current Sturgis leadership has deviated from the original charter in three critical areas: academic standards, school governance, and student population.


 * First, current school leadership eliminated the standards of the IBO as the school's academic standard. Sturgis received its charter on the basis of ALL students enrolling in the IB Diploma Program and attempting to meet all of the program's requirements, including sitting for six externally-assessed IB exams.


 * Currently, students may opt out of the exams (now a choice, not a requirement), even though the public has paid to prepare students to take them. Apologists claim that such exams are unnecessary to judging the effectiveness of the school:


 * "Simply taking the IB courses, without taking a single exam, still provides the students with an opportunity for a better education than any other high school in the Cape Cod area, and I would daresay one of the best educations in the state."


 * In the absence of school-wide IB exams (the equivalent of twelfth-grade, college-preparatory exit exams), Sturgis is left with the same MCAS standard as any other Massachusetts high school (the equivalent of 10th-grade, minimum-competency exit exams). The MCAS exams are now the only exams required of all Sturgis students. (Since Sturgis is not a comprehensive high school, neither its population, nor its MCAS results, readily compare with those of local comprehensive high schools.)


 * Second, current school leadership eliminated the Board of Overseers, the third leg of its governance structure. Intended as a check on the short-term self-interest of a given board of Sturgis trustees, as well as the political and bureaucratic interests of the Massachusetts' Department of Education, the Sturgis charter specified a Board of Overseers, charged on an annual basis with inspecting the school and producing a written audit on the school's progress toward meeting the requirements of its charter. Although Sturgis leadersip claimed--in their bid for re-chartering--that such a board was in place, no evidence exists to support that claim.  After re-chartering, the charter was altered to eliminate the Board of Overseers.


 * Third, current school leadership changed the school's status from a district charter to a regional charter, while reducing the size of its student body. Such moves eliminated competition with the local high school by allowing Sturgis to recruit from a broader geographic area and larger talent pool without having to give admissions preference to local students, fight for highly able local applicants, or remediate the education of those less able.


 * Sturgis opened in 1998 with 162 freshmen, of whom, 99 were residents of the local school district. Eight years later, Sturgis has a student population of 350, of whom, no more than 110 are local. To the extent that charter schools are intended to push district schools to become more competitive, Sturgis has moved in the opposite direction.

Both proponents and opponents of charter schools have every right to question the direction of Sturgis Charter (Public) School since its founding, given that major changes have contradicted the approved public purpose of the school and that such changes have occurred without public explanation. To date, neither school officials nor unofficial school apologists have offered reasons for those changes.

Governance
In between the ad hominem attacks and edit wars, could somebody please add something to this article clarifying who runs it and what the governance structure is? -- Orange Mike 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A disgruntled former student uses Wikipedia as soapbox
Please review WP:SOAP. 71.124.245.135 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That Sturgis is not one the US NEWS list is not any less true than the fact that it is on the Newsweek list...

If one if material, then so is the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That a fact is true does not merit inclusion. Inclusion by absence would be justified if it is something that all schools should have; the fact that a school lacks accreditation would be worthy of insertion in the article. The fact that the school wasn't included in a magazine's rankings of the top 5% of US schools is no more noteworthy than the fact that it didn't win an Oscar, hasn't struck oil and is not an aardvark. The list of things that Sturgis is not is infinite. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not complicated
It's noteworthy because it's a competing list of high schools. The Oscar's is not an awards ceremony for high schools.

This not about a list of things Sturgis is not -- It's a list of top high schools that chose not to include Sturgis.

I stand by the inclusion of the US News list in the article, but am certainly open to the input of other editors.

== It is relevant =-

The fact that Sturgis isn't in the US News list is relevant as it puts the Newsweek rating in context -- one publication thinks it's top 60 in the country -- one doesn't think it's top 40 in the state.

If one is relevant, so is the other.

It's similar to the fact that it's relevant that George Bush lost the popular vote in Election 2000. This adds context to Sturgis' victor in Newsweek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If the US News list isn't relevant
If it isn't relevant that Sturgis was left out of a competing list, then it isn't relevant that it was included in the Newsweek list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)