Talk:Wichita Collegiate School

Important Notes Before Editing This Article
Please review the following to get a better idea of what you should add to this article:
 * 1) Please follow the WikiProject Schools guideline for layout and content.
 * 2) Please examine these articles for ideas: Garden City High School (KS), Plano Senior High School (TX), Johnson Senior High School (MN), Stuyvesant High School (NY).
 * 3) Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.

Please review the following before editing:
 * 1) Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
 * 2) Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
 * 3) Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

• Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  04:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Accreditation
This school is listed as non-accredited by the State of Kansas in which it resides. Some editors here seem to want to cover up this fact and have removed it from this article. The school might be able to garner accreditation from an acceptable accreditation authority, but so far they haven't. The only body they list as justification for an accreditation status is not an approved accrediting body by any of the Dept. of Educations known acceptable accreditors. Vivaldi (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about the accreditation issue, nor really anything about this K-12 school itself, but I came across this entry while surfing and saw the comments suggesting that it might be a diploma mill. As exposing fraud like diploma mills always interests me, I did some research.

If the point of accreditation is to determine the school's quality, then the repeated results of the annual Kansas Science Olympiad held at Wichita State University are probably more instructive than the accreditation, with Wichita Collegiate School regularly scoring 2nd or 3rd place statewide for small schools over a period of many years. For this year's results. For past year results scroll down at this link to see links to previous years.


 * The point of accredition is not "to determine a school's quality". The very best school in the world can remain unaccredited. Vivaldi (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wichita Collegiate School has also been awarded status as a Duke University Talent Identification Program education site for gifted children. My conclusion is that it's not a diploma mill or fly-by-night operation. Mothra 14:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your conclusion that it isn't a diploma mill or fly-by-night operation. However, the school is unaccredited.  The regional accrediting body in charge of the Kansas area and the state of Kansas itself have determined that the school doesn't meet the requirements to be listed as accredited.  That is an important consideration (but certainly not the only consideration) that parents and students should know about.Vivaldi (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "The regional accrediting body in charge of the Kansas area and the state of Kansas itself have determined that the school doesn't meet the requirements to be listed as accredited." - do you have a source for this?  Have they gone through the accreditation process and failed?  It could just as easily be that the school has simply not applied for accreditation.  They could have done this for a variety of reasons, such as to keep from having to follow state standards such as Kansas' recent exclusion of evolutionary theory from school curricula.  Remember, WP:NPOV  69.148.248.232 07:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They "could have" for a "variety of reasons" that you can speculate about all you want. There is a citation that says they are unaccredited and it comes from a reliable source.  One of the requirements for accreditation is that one must apply for accredition, so it is certainly true that they haven't met the requirements for accreditation whether they applied or not. Vivaldi (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not true that they haven't met the requirements since there has been no finding one way or another on that issue. All that can be said with any factual basis is that they simply have not applied for accreditation.  Anything else is speculation.  76.175.172.143 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is also completely wrong to state that Kansas has stripped evolutionary theory from its schools and it certainly doesn't require private schools to follow the guidelines anyway. The regional accrediting body is a private non-government body that determines whether schools meet certain criteria.  Wichita Collegiate hasn't met those criteria. Vivaldi (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, there has been no finding one way or another on whether they have met any criteria for state accreditation. They simply have not applied for it.  76.175.172.143 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was the editor that returned the deleted comments about the programs lack of acredidation. It is inappropriate to remove well referenced, neutral facts, which these were. The article can benefit from expansion, and the addition of the above statements would go a LONG way to resolving the notability issue noted below. Go ahead an BE BOLD and add the information, with references. The idea should always be to include all relevent, neutral, and referenced facts about the school as one can. The fact that it is unaccredited IS an important fact, but the above statements about the Duke Talent Program AND the Science Olympiad are ALSO important facts, and should be added.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 18:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the school is a well-respected school that seems to graduate a number of people that go on to college. I recently heard they even had 5 of their 85 seniors selected to be National Merit semifinalists.  My cousin even has two children that are attending the school, which is why I even came to this article to begin with.   The problem is that the school isn't very notable.  There are not many mentions of the school in independent sources of reliable information.   I don't think the school should even have an article at all until that happens.  I agree that people should not base their decision on school selection solely on the basis of accreditation status, but also one should also understand what difficulties unaccreditation may incur on a student.  Many colleges and high school activities boards either don't allow nonaccredited students to participate or require them to undergo additional tasks in order to be accepted.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My issue is not with whether Wichita Collegiate is accredited or not. It is unarguably listed as a non-accredited, non-public school on the Kansas Board of Education website. My issue is with the (not unbiased, not referenced) implication that ISAS is an accrediting mill. Also at issue is why Kansas refuses to recognize ISAS accreditation, when the departments of education of five other states recognize ISAS accreditation for 82 schools, which is why I included information about Texas and Oklahoma. I'm sure there's a history here that we're not privy to.209.30.33.209 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is a history of the ISAS and Kansas. I'm guessing that the group isn't able to meet the minimum standards that are required for an accrediting body to be recognized by the state.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And that would be a violation of WP:OR. We can sit here and guess all day.  Find a source or leave it out.  69.148.248.232 07:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Vivaldi: the department of education only lists accreditors for institutions of higher education. Of course ISAS won't be on the list, as it is an accreditor for institutions of SECONDARY education. 24.124.109.67 07:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Department of Education lists acceptable accreditors that include nearly every primary and secondary school in the nation. There you'll discover that there is a regional accrediting body that is responsible for Kansas and that accrediting body lists secondary schools that meet the minimum standards of quality that are required to be listed.Vivaldi (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are trying to push some sort of POV here. From the KS department of education website:  "The Kansas State Board of Education is the only entity in the state of Kansas that can provide state accreditation to schools. Although there are numerous national school accrediting agencies, these forms of accreditation are not the same as a "State Accredited School."

Any person seeking to open a "state" accredited school in Kansas needs to do the following: [...]"
 * This means, of course, that if a PRIVATE school wants to be accredited by the STATE OF KANSAS, it can, but this is not required.
 * Further, just to put this nonsense to rest, faculty from Wichita Collegiate School are on Standards Development Committees for the Kansas Education Standards. See:  http://www.ksde.org/portals/0/Standards%20Documents/Science/sci_standards_Aug07.doc


 * I never said it was "required" to become accredited. Schools are always free to remain unaccredited. Vivaldi (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, I don't understand even what you are trying to say. If you were talking about the Kansas Department of Education, I refuted that above.  However, if you were talking about the US Department of Education, which is what I originally thought, hence my last post, any novice student of Constitutional Law will tell you that the US Department of Education does not have authority to accredit.  From ed.gov: "In creating the Department of Education, Congress made clear its intention that the secretary of education and other Department officials be prohibited from exercising "any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system." The establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation -- these are responsibilities handled by the various states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations of all kinds, not by the U.S. Department of Education."


 * The DOE isn't who accredits schools. The private non-government regional accreditation agencies are the accepted bodies that determine school accreditation.  Vivaldi (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are trying to make something out of nothing. This issue should be closed.  The article should read something like: "Wichita Collegiate School is not accredited by the State of Kansas, instead it is accredited by ISAS."  That's it.  Leave it alone.


 * I'm not making something of nothing. Nearly every single school that fails to meet accreditation claims that they are accredited by some other accredition mill.  The point is that these other agencies aren't the ones that are responsible or accepted for accrediting the schools.  Vivaldi (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's wonderful that Wichita Collegiate has decided that it doesn't want to be accredited by the proper agency and it is free to refuse to allow a private agency to give it accreditation for whatever reasons it chooses. Vivaldi (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your use of the term "accredition mill" [sic] exemplifies your obvious agenda. As is cited in the article, WCS has submitted itself to a separate accrediting agency from the state.  The school must meet certain standards to maintain this accreditation.  The reasons for not seeking state accreditation are made clear in the article using verifiable sources.  If you can find a single source to support any of your theories, by all means, put them in the article.  Since you won't be able to do that, though, I suggest you refrain from any further editing on this article and go find an article that you can view objectively.  76.175.172.143 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, your statement "many colleges and high school activities boards either don't allow nonaccredited students to participate or require them to undergo additional tasks in order to be accepted." is without any factual foundation. This is either original research, because you have no sources for this assertion, or it is personal opinion.  Either way, it is entirely inappropriate for wikipedia.  And, considering that nearly 100% of graduates from Wichita Collegiate School attend nationally accredited universities, you seem to be grasping at straws anyway.  24.124.109.67 10:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement came from the Wikipedia article on accreditation and it was referenced there. And like I have stated previously, I know that Wichita Collegiate is a very good school whose students do well and virtually all of them attend college.  That isn't the point.   Accreditation doesn't mean that a school is "good" or "bad".   The best school in the nation could be unaccredited.   The point is that is unaccredited and there are at least some consequences, however minor, when a school chooses to be unaccredited.
 * While that is all fine and good, you, yet again, did not provide a single source for any of your claims. Wikipedia is not a forum for far-fetched, slanderous speculation.  WP:PROVEIT 76.175.172.143 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability
This school does not list any secondary sources of information to demonstrate that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If this school is notable then we would expect to see numerous articles written about the school and it's importance. We do not have any of these and thus we should either find some secondary sources or remove this page. Vivaldi (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree on the notability, but that might change if some citations are added. I don't agree that the school needs to list anything, athe as that would make this an advertisement for the school.  Requiring the school itself to list anything would probably both violate WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM.  Further, your saying, "This school does not list any secondary sources of information to demonstrate that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."  makes me question your motives here.  You seem to be quite adamant about the accreditation issue, yet given this statement I do not believe you are keeping a neutral point of view.  WP:NPOV  69.148.248.232 07:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't understand what a secondary source of information is or what I wrote. This article, at the time that I wrote the comment, didn't have ANY secondary sources of information that demonstrated that it was worthy of inclusion.  A notable topic would be expected to be mentioned by a number a varying secondary sources -- newspapers, magazines, books, etc...  Vivaldi (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should just leave this article completely alone as it is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim that this school fails for notability.  You said, "This school does not list any secondary sources..."  The only logical conclusion to be made from this statement is that you expect the school to come in here and defend itself.  That would be a clear violation of WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV.  76.175.172.143 (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources/citations/format
This article needs a lot of work. Greenhill School (Addison, Texas) is a very similar school and perhaps we should model this article after that one. Here is what appears to be an unbiased source for more information on Wichita Collegiate School: http://www.petersons.com/pschools/code/instvcprint.asp?inunid=2553&sponsor=1 69.148.248.232 08:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and put a 1 month time frame on this. In one month I'm going to go through and remove everything that is not cited.  So, if you want it kept in, make sure it has a citation.  Wikipedia already has way too much garbage as it is.  Find a source, or it's gone.  WP:OR and WP:V  69.148.248.232 08:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Have extensively edited, added, revised and sourced wanted material over the past 2 days, documenting academic, athletic, historical and philosophical notability and adding specific sections on athletics, history, references, external links.Mothra 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work so far Mosura. It's starting to look like we should remove the notability tag.  24.124.109.67 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm about to add a brief notability statement to the text. Also, please note that the 2 mentions of girls' teams under athletics require no further citation - like everything else in the paragraph they are covered by (current) reference note 20: # ^ KWCH 12, Catch It Kansas, "Wichita Collegiate History" http://www.catchitkansas.com/global/Story.asp?s=6963040  Mothra 20:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, there are 5 days remaining to add cites. As of right now, there appear to only be a few statements remaining that do not have a citation. Therefore, I move to remove the citation and notability tags on November 12 along with the uncited sentences. 24.124.109.67 00:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds great, as long as the two items that are marked "uncited" about the girls' teams remain. As noted above, they're covered by footnote 20 and don't require separate cites each time.Mothra 08:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)