Talk:Great Valley High School

The entire section on the scheduling of this school, including its "criticism" sub-section, has no references and is written with heavy bias. I will leave the notices on the section for a short period of time, awaiting a response, but I intend to eventually delete it, because it is not necessary to the functioning of the article, is poorly written, and certainly does not provide a neutral point of view.Citizen05 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well someone deleted my sources... but it is in the school paper. I'll try to find, but the teachers don't like it, neither do the students. It isn't biased, and they are trying to take it away. We already had this conversation... Superbowlbound (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

'We' did not have any such conversation. And no it is not true that the teachers and the students 100% don't like it. Especially the business about the lab periods, particularly AP Biology. Whoever wrote that section failed to understand the standard scheduling system, the block scheduling system, and the curriculum, which is why sources are needed. It is not so important that it is untrue, but more important that that's not the sort of statement you can put on Wikipedia anyway. The most you can say is that it is "contested" or that the students and teachers have mixed opinions. The purpose is to state what is being said within the community from the third person, not to directly provide an argument for one side. Also, you cannot leave the facts up without either a [citation needed] marker or a reference. Either add the reference that someone "deleted" or take away the information, leaving just the administrative information. Do not delete the flags until you have provided sources. In addition, you may not remove the "neutrality disputed" marker- if I or anyone else disputes the neutrality, it is disputed! I will not add it again because I removed the information I considered non-neutral, but I'm just explaining for future reference.Citizen05 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my conversation was with someone else; i didn't mean you specifically anyways. You really don't know what you are talking about do you? After Bio lost those periods they got them back this year because of all the lost time. The block scheduling has fatal flaws. I give up are you a freshman or a school administrator? Either way don't talk the talk without knowing what you are talking about. And the section is totally legit, how about you try to find other sources... I will give you links to the un-neutral articles that express the viewpoint of the community. Things aren't always neutral, it is generally disliked. This section has remained here and been accepted by members, so how about next time use the talk section before your action. Superbowlbound (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am a senior. Not only that- I took AP Biology last year! Now I want you to carefully explain to me how I somehow lost my AP Biology lab period- without me noticing all year, or the teacher Mr. Bradley mentioning it once. Also, it would not matter if a public petition was signed by every single inhabitant of Great Valley School District signed a petition saying they disapproved of the scheduling; it would still be Wikipedia's job to only say that they disapproved, not write a disapproving review. Also I dont have to use the discussion page before I enact Wikipedia policy, such as labeling unsourced assertions. I don't think I need my own sources- because I am not trying to add anything! I only wanted to alter what was already there. Citizen05 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Because you used to have it eight times every six days... wow simple math. Yo can argue that you lost one or two periods depending on the persons view. The periods used to be consecutive periods as well unlike the block, which although consecutive you don't have it the next day, losing one lab and one class. Superbowlbound (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AP Science courses are supposed to meet 7 times every six days, not eight. At least when I took it. And that was more than enough periods to complete the college board required AP labs for the portfolio. But even if the class did meet eight times a cycle, they would still meet that many times under the block schedule, because block scheduling does not eliminate any periods. For example, if it was supposed to meet twice on Day1 and twice on day2, and this cycle had block day1, the class would meet once on day1odd, once on day1even, twice on day2, and once on day3-6. Now count carefully- 8 times, day1-6 cycle. And if you count the fact that they effectively met for four periods on day 1, that makes 10 times in a cycle. Nice job with your simple math. Another fallacy of yours is over the consecutively of the periods. I could not wait for you to bring that one up. The point of having a double lab day is to meet for 90 minutes straight, to accomplish a lab- it does not need to be broken officially into two 45 minute periods. On the block day, you meet for- you guessed it- 90 minutes straight, so you can complete a lab, just like on a normal, non-block double period. Now lets say you also want to have the class meet two days in a row. If it is your lab day on a block day, the class meets for 90 minutes on the odd day and 90 minutes on the even day. So they can just do the lab on the even day and do the preparation on the odd day. Or, since the class met periods 5 and 7, and would thus have a long period on the first of the two block days, they could do the prep on a normal day before the block. Finally, the labs can be accomplished in any 90 minute stretch, so the class can do the lab on any block day2-6 if their lab day is day1. That means that they have much more freedom as to the time and number of labs they do throughout the year, because they meet for that many more 90-minute classes.Citizen05 (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will also add that the average AP score for last year's AP Bio classes was 4.183, an exceptionally high score and the highest so far in school history for that course. How is that for the "fatal flaws" of this system?Citizen05 (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. This year they re-instituted 8 for AP bio and 7 for other AP. fail. Did you even read what I wrote? so 6 day cycle right? then odd and even block, okay? so day 1-5 you have class. Day 6 you have double class and Day 6 even you don't (losing a class) so that is 6 ish classes, maybe 7 out of 7 days, although that is a 20 min loss. So where is the 8th class? nowhere. Simple math... and where your proof for this AP bio score mr. citation? Besides, lurking variable of having smarter kids, studying harder, or a better curriculum. your score, it means nothing

At what point did I say I was a Mr.? haha. I also noticed you chose not to respond to the truths I wrote about consecutivity and laboratory freedom. Thank you. You are right about the score being somewhat irrelevant, complete with AP stat terminology. I just wanted to point out that if you think the system has fatal flaws, you specifically as a student probably struggled with it. I think the current method of having one day blocked in a cycle is perfectly fine, no more or less days blocked. The AP scores are published at an annual score board curriculum presentation which all inhabitants of Great Valley School District are free to attend. The school only published the information in the form of a powerpoint, but I trust that they did not lie because the slide included the score by student. OK... you failed at the math component again, and again you wrote "simple math." I'll try and do it a little more slowly this time. Assume that the class is supposed to meet for 7 times in one cycle. Each time the class is together for 45 minutes counts as one "meeting." Now, the class has lab day on day1, so they effectively meet TWICE on day one. Then they meet ONCE on day two. Then they meet ONCE on day three. Then they meet ONCE on day four. Then they meet ONCE on day five. Then they meet TWICE on day 6odd, because they are meeting for 90 minutes- not for 70 minutes, losing 20 minutes as you claim, but 90 minutes, or two 45 minute sessions. Now count up the times they met. It totals eight 45 minute meetings in a cycle. Or nine times if they have their lab day blocked. If you need me to do it again with AP Biology meeting eight times in a week instead of seven, to show that they still do not lose their lab period, I will gladly acquiesce. Citizen05 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption is false because you still #1 lose a day per cycle (it used to be 6) and #2 you didn't have an AP bio lab. Also no I didn't read most of it. Your arguments are too long. http://www.gvsd.org/gvhs/handbook/handbook07-08.pdf That link might help? Superbowlbound (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Count the number of classes AP BIO has per year. This year they do have two lab days, and without block scheduling they meet 240 times per year and with block scheduling they meet 240 times per year. I can post the equations to prove it if you like. Not reading the entire argument out of laziness is an embarassingly poor way to discuss anything. Citizen05 (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the poorly-written sentences about students wasting time in their free periods. Since students do not have any class any more or less under the block scheduling, any such criticism should be directed toward the concepts of campus, open campus, or study hall periods separately, not set confusingly among criticisms of the block scheduling. Also I remind all users of Wikipedia decorum: any unreferenced or uncited sections or facts need to either A) have a reference B) have a warning that they are in need of a reference or C) not exist. Citizen05 (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Valley High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070327205143/http://www.gvsd.org/index.pl?id=2359&isa=Category&op=show to http://www.gvsd.org/index.pl?id=2359&isa=Category&op=show

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)