Talk:Education Minnesota

• The 'controversies' section, I would argue, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If articles on labor unions were to include discussions of each union's political positions, we would have lengthy articles which changed very frequently as politicians, political issues, budgets and union leadership changed. Additionally, the section made no logical sense. The facts about the Crosby-Ironton strike were true (although vague; how hard would it have been to mention that the strike lasted 39 days and ended on April 7, 2005?), but the strike was not linked to the Pawlenty administration's policies. Nor, in my mind, could it have been; newspaper reports about the strike indicated that the strike was caused by the recalcitrance of the retiring school district administrator (who wished to make a statement against the union as a final act). It might be appropriate, I think, to include a section on EM's general policies, such as funding for schools, class size, tenure, NCLB, etc. But such a section would need to be referenced and be broader than the union's disagreements with the Pawlenty administration. 23:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Two categories seemed appropriate for removal. The 'Labor' category deals not with labor unions but with labor issues such as definitions of productivity and labor statistics. The 'Education in Minnesota' category deals with laws, rules and regulations regarding educational policy in Minnesota and not labor unions. If, for example, there were a Wiki article on labor law application to Minnesota public schools (both preK-12 and higher education), then I would agree that it might be appropriate to add this article to the 'Education in Minnesota' category. Tim1965 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)