Talk:Trinity Presbyterian School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Colleges attended by Trinity graduates

Recently, a line implying that most Trinity graduates choose to attend Auburn University or the University of Alabama was removed. This line has been returned reworked to convey the original meaning intended by the author. This information is indeed accurate and may be checked quite easily. Each year at graduation a list is produced indicating where each graduate is to attend college. These two universities have dominated this list for the past few years with an increasing trend. Furthermore, the Guidance Office makes readily available a list of where recent graduates are attending college, which may be viewed on their webpage. While this list is not totally accurate, it provides a rough estimate. Using the data from this list, 66% of Trinity graduates since the class of 1998 enrolled at either Auburn University or the University of Alabama. If Auburn University at Montgomery and the University of Alabama at Birmingham are included, then this number increases to 71%. If cne considers the number of individuals who attend other schools, but decide to later transfer to one of these schools or the increasing trend towards attending these schools, then the number may be even higher.

Clearly, this is an accurate statement. Please contribute to this discussion if there are any other concerns as to why this should not be included.

[edit] Controversy section

A user recently removed the entire controversy section without comment. Currently, this section discusses drug testing and the teachers who have recently left Trinity some under dubious cicumstances. Please review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The official neutral point of view policy requires that all significant viewpoints be presented. Both of these issues have created major stirs within the Trinity community. Parents, students, and faculty alike have spoken about these issues amongst one another with very strong viewpoints. One has to have had their head buried in the sand to not have heard about these issues.

While some may feel that matters such as these are embarassing for the school, they are still major issues which are important to many within the Trinity community who wish to help shape it for a better future. Wikipedia is not a public relations tool, but rather a tool to share information that is accurate and complete. Additional viewpoints are welcome on subsequent edits, but please do not simply remove this section with no explanation. Please help keep Wikipedia accurate and fair by abstaining from such attempts to remove, rather than contest, any disagreeable information.

• I'm curious about the multiple references to the SACS review. Are you familiar with the process? Also, are you a graduate of the school? The grammar and spelling have been horrible. I have made multiple corrections. --68.17.129.191 01:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The current state of this entry is largely the result of the efforts of myself and other students, graduates, and otherwise members of the Trinity community. I am unaware of the status of some other editors though it seems apparent at least one editor was connected to M.A. rather than Trinity. This particular editor made some hyperbolic comments about Trinity’s heavy emphasis on sports and made an exaggerated comparison between the academic achievements of M.A. and Trinity. I softened the addition to try and ensure the viewpoint was represented as it is prevalent, but in a more neutral and objective way without the seemingly outright defamation of Trinity. The comment was later deleted by another user and I have not addressed the issue further as the original contributor has not responded. Most of the editors are, however, part of the Trinity community.

Unfortunately careless errors occur even as previous errors are corrected. The positions of myself and other editors are that the most important thing is to make the content available. Additions and edits are sometimes made in haste and preclude proper proofreading so careless errors do occur. The beauty of Wikipedia is that users like yourself can correct such errors that are missed. Your corrections of the spelling of Brian E. Willett’s name and the usage of principal instead of principle have been appreciated.

In regards to the multiple references to the SACS review, there was actually only one reference before your edit of the BEWFA section on October 4 (assuming you are also Martha2be) after which a second reference was added responding to your addition. The response was made to soften and make more neutral the tone of both of your edits which displayed an overly positive tone towards the efforts of Brian E. Willet and fine arts at Trinity and did not acknowledge the more critical opinions that exist. Many parents, teachers and students have expressed reservations about the program being “high-quality” and also acknowledged staffing issues. For instance a number of complaints have been leveled as to whether having one major production per year constitutes a drama program as well as the fact that forensics is still listed as an offering to prospective parents though the program was disbanded.

In particular the SACS comment referenced the review close to 2000 (I am not certain the exact year) after which major efforts were engaged to build up areas of fine arts that were lacking or nonexistent. It was widely acknowledged that this was a response preparing for the next review based on the comments received. Major discussions from this time culminated in the finalizations of the decisions regarding BEWFA. The fine arts program may have began with the band in 1984, but major efforts to build up other areas of fine arts that had been lacking did not occur until much later and also occurred all at once during the time period referenced preparing for the next accreditation review. I am unsure the parts of the process that you think are relevant to these issues so I am unsure how to directly address your question. Since you say you were close to the process maybe you can provide additional perspectives in addition to the those already mentioned. --Tpscats77 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)