Talk:Toronto District School Board
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
[edit] About the list
There are 558 public schools in the system. It seems hopeless to try and keep a list of all of them, and arbitrarly picking a just a few elems and a junior to be included. At most, we should list the high schools, and some special elems/middle schools. --Rob 23:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I had started working on a table of schools to insert into the article, or perhaps to have as a secondary Schools of the Toronto District School Board page. However, with the recent work I put into Peel District School Board to list just 221 schools, I think it is unlikely I'm going to come up with a nice and maintainable way to represent this information. I'm stumped for now as to what to do about this school board's list of schools. --Stephane Charette 05:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There are four publically funded boards in the Toronto area. The article fails to mention the Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud. This is an oversight that should be corrected.
The Wiki page states that Sheila Ward is the Chair of the TDSB. She is the past Chair. The new one is Trustee John Campbell. This should be corrected.
[edit] Controversies section
This section is clearly written from a non-neutral point of view. The statements, although factually correct, present only a one-sided view of the truth. They should be reworded to present both sides of the story. In addition, they have unnecessary or irrelevant details in them. This is the article on the TDSB, not on the individuals named. Remeber also Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or website to air dirty laundry about a subject. Flyguy649 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The following section subsumed under Controversies is in need of work.
"What’s very disturbing about this is that Ms. Pantalone could return to her previous duties, according to Grant Bowers a Lawyer representing the Toronto District School Board said that "It's quite possible she'll end up back in her old position," [4]"...
This sounds suspiciously like POV. The source [4] given for the above statement reflects only the above laywer's conjecture; the rest regarding the poster's feeling disturbed is non-neutral point of view. The existence of the publication ban limits the scope of facts made privy to the general public, apart from the defendant's arrest, charge, and general trial outcome.
In light of the original poster's inclination for NPOV, I also question the link of the defendant to the Deputy Mayor of Toronto. The link serves no logical or rational purpose in bridging this particular controversy to another unrelated issue, apart from bloodlines. The controversy dealt solely with the defendant as a professional employed by the Toronto District School Board, and not because of her family ties. I'd like to see the link to the Deputy removed since his being a politician is not germane to any TDSB controversies.
And on a final note, there are several errors in punctuation that spot this article. Erikkukun 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
All the article does is state facts and does show both sides of the story where avaiable Eg benefits of the coke contract recieving $400,000.00 aunnually. Most of the other side of the story is that the school board was guilty on all accounts. If you still think it should be reworded in a non-neutral way then rewrite it. --Disengaged 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I have finished reading the entire TDSB controversies section and it is obvious that this article is in dire need of a rewrite. My bone(s) of contention: There are no official sources to substantiate TDSB's entering into financial relationships with Dell, as well as a lack of sources to substantiate this article's very detailed claims of computer purchases ["Two identical computers were compared (sic) that are both offered from Dell, purchased through the TDSB agreement from a price-list created on January 25, 2006 costs the school $1365.48 (before taxes) while the exact same machine was offered for sale on Dell computers website to the general public for $1357.00 (before taxes)."] This could be hearsay for all we know.
It's also apparent from the writing in this particular article that this article (in its entirety, perhaps) is in need of attention regarding basic grammar and punctuation.Erikkukun 19:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of mispelling or neutrality. I think that the 'Controversies' section is a necessity to the article. I think it should be re-inserted (and) or re-written. (1sttomars 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC))
I agree with the above user, the "Controversies" section is needed here. Controversies from this school board consistently fill the newspapers, right now a quick google search, you will find many articles about the school board "black-only" school proposal, promoting Racial segregation that has raised serious concerns with people of all faiths and backgrounds. Not to long ago it was about the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that was implemented. Everyday, for years, I read articles in newspapers about this alleged corrupt school board. The controversy goes with the territory with this school board. In 2002 the Province even was forced in to seize control over this school board, the first time ever in the country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.87.35 (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I vote that we need the Controversies section so that an accurate picture of the TDSB is painted through Wikipedia. Who is with me in putting the section back in? Zweinstein (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have an idea. Why don't we just make a new article called TDSB Controversies and put all of the controversies information in there instead. Would that make people happier? Zweinstein (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
