Talk:Accelerated Christian Education

Who are Derby and Emerson

Okay, I went to an ACE school, I met Dr. Howard, his wife, and his various kids who had later roles in the company. I understand Howard is now using the same ideas to run eagle charter schools corporation-- how come he isn't mentioned on this page? And who are Derby and Emerson? Never ran into them, perhaps they started it?

Also has anyone mentioned Alpha Omega--which apparently was a split from ACE in the 70s (or so I heard)

It's interesting that nothing is yet mentioned about the schools that use the curriculum. There are some good schools and some very bad schools that use it. The school I attended supplemented ACE's weak points with tools from BJU and A-Beka, they also always had field trips and group activities that expanded upon the curriculum. We also had a healthy sports program for a small school. -- One of the keys to ACE is the International Student Convention which encourages group activities, performance and sports related as well as individual excellence. There is a strong emphasis at these events to be involved with people.

The lack of mention of the International Student Convention and it's regional conventions leaves out a lot about the curriculum. Of course not all schools participate, but it is key to the curriculum, without it you don't have the group learning described in the article as missing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.25 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure who Derby and Emerson are, but I have reinstated the paragraph noting that the Howards started ACE. A source for that information, and their reasoning would be good.

The article does not mention schools that use the curriculum because it is an article about the curriculum, not the particular schools. There is, however, the "Private Schools" section, which could include information about the different ways schools use it, with proper citations, of course, eg. exclusively ACE, ACE supplemented with other curricula, ACE supplemented with class instruction.

I might be wrong, but I would have thought that the conventions were part of the School of Tomorrow, not the ACE curriculum.

Thank you for your comments. Please remember to sign them :) . Blarneytherinosaur talk 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is my first wikipedia edit, I have the references, but I'm not sure I put them in correctly (to update footnotes, etc.) -- I added a section on the student convention and tried to document it all. It's important as it fills in the holes related to Science, Performance, and Group events noted by the study.

I also noted something on the private school list that pointed to a count of how many in 1980 (based on a google scholar search) Can first hand experience of some sort be noted (I know a school that uses A-Beka for Kindergarten, ACE for 1-12, Public School material for advanced Math in a classroom setting, and BJU material for extra Bible courses) I'll see if I can find a better citation. -- Strangest thing, I can't log in and stay logged in -- so it just signed it with my IP. Sorry.

--andsmi 03:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I talked with an ACE rep at Vancouver Missions Fest a few years back about the disappearance of Dr. Howard. Apparently there was a rift between him and his wife, and the settlement gave Mrs. Howard control of ACE. -- A former ACE student.

I attended a regional convention and was not impressed. The students seemed to be highly adversarial and stuck to themselves (I almost got into a couple of fist fights there). I chalk this up to kids being so isolated in small schools that they don't know how to relate to others outside of their groups. The people in authority did nothing to bring people together. I'm sure that the national convention is a little different. But aren't these things only once a year? I don't see how an annual event is supposed to have much impact on the students' otherwise dismal education.--Yodamite 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have attended 5 regional conventions, and 4 international student conventions and have them to be the exact oppostie of what yodamite found. The Bible say in order to have friends you must be friendly; maybe that was your problem. I have been to conventions in many different states and have the kids to be friendly, courteous, and polite unlike the students you find in public school settings. Although, there will be a few bad apples every time you have a gathering of that size, for the most part the students and staff are very warm and friendly. I firmly believe with the othere users that the conventions fill in the holes, so to speak. If someone has a problem with the curriculum but has never read it through, or attended any of the conventions they are not making a wise decision based on good judgement. golfman905

I would say that being overly assumptive could very well be your problem. You've precisely illustrated just how adversarial ACE students can be for no good reason at all. Regarding the function of conventions, you have not sufficiently explained how a couple of weeks out of an entire school year are supposed to fill in the gaps of a poorly structured curriculum. ACE conventions are little more than glorified pep rallies with awards thrown in. Conventions would be seen as insignificant in determining the quality of ACE's curriculum.--Yodamite 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Berliner study

No matter how good this study is, it shouldn't be quoted the way it is here. It cannot be corrected or rebuffed effectively. For example, banning the "peace" symbol is not a "paradox" if one understands that some consider it satanic because of it's pagan roots. Saying that "creation science is not science" can be rebuffed. At the very least, it's an hypothesis. Creation science doesn't claim to offer a model. matturn 13:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've gone through the statements that I believe are well founded and those that are debatable, see User:Blarneytherinosaur/Sandbox, but I still haven't come up with a better way to present the information. I think it will need to be rewritten in encyclopedic style summarising the criticisms and citing the study as a reference. That way we can add new or contradicting information from other sources without compromising the integrity of the quotations. Blarneytherinosaur talk 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Additional Resource

This article is good http://www.marshall.edu/etd/masters/kelley-lisa-2005-ma.pdf and has a lot of references to more info about ACE-- might be worth mining for more info -- In reviewing my personal experience with ACE I did recall that the supervisors at our school ( 3, one for high school, one for middle area, and one for primary area) were former public school teachers who were certified teachers in NY state before they started working on the school. The principal when I left had a bachelors in english and masters in christian school administration from BJU and the school still emphasizes a minimum of a bachelors degree for their teachers. My wife however attended a much different ACE school which was not up to standards anyone would approve of (imho) andsmi

Needs NPOV-ness

My personal bias is very much against a curriculum like this. However, the tone this article takes in its present state is excessively critical.

Certainly the long excerpts from published works need to be pulled, for copyright reasons if nothing else. Criticisms deserve space, but this is not the place for an extended diatribe about brainwashing by the Christian right. --Saforrest 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Brainwashing by the Christian right? Thats funny! What do you call what the liberal left does when they say that anything but Christianity is allowed in the schools. They kids cant be taught the Bible account of creation but they are taught evolution, and they cant be taught that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, but they are taught that it is an alternative lifestyle. It infuriates me just thinking about it. 71.197.58.192 20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a former ACE student, and I took a major role in rewriting the main body of this article, but I haven't known what to do about the criticism section. I've tried a couple of rewites, but I haven't come up with anything worthwile. Since seeing your comment I have started another rewrite, that can be found in my sandbox. Please feel free to contribute. Blarneytherinosaur talk 04:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that the article is not NPOV, the way to restore NPOV is not to remove sourced material from reliable sources. Rather, the way to restore NPOV would be to find reliable sources to add to the article which balance the article. In other words, while your effort in your sandbox is commendable, it is misguided. If you think the article is unbalanced, the way to address it is to add reliable sources with oppossing views.-75.179.159.240 20:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The information on my sandbox is not a final version and is open to contributions. I am only working from the one source, and I can't starting every sentence with "David Berliner says...".

There is no way we can keep a copy and paste of an academic study word for word in the article. It is a breach of copyright. Also, I doubt that there are many other studies of ACE that will be easily accessible. Blarneytherinosaur talk 06:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have archived the talk page I can see that from the above conversation that we have another source [1]. Anyone feel free to add to the criticism rewrite. Blarneytherinosaur talk 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is almost as biased as Wikipedia is in general. Just like the public school system, the biased gatekeepers can moderate what is fact. 74.70.247.200 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dade Christian School

I removed outdated information on Dade Christian School. I am a member of DCS and have never pledged not to draw, wear, or display in any way the 'peace' symbol. It is not in the student handbook and I in fact know someone who wears the symbol often and has never been punished for it to my knowledge.--Jorfer 22:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed your comment about that from this talk page because I though we had dealt with it. The content of the criticism secion is under rewrite at the moment. Blarneytherinosaur talk 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Berliner study

As a former teacher in a school that uses A.C.E. School of Tomorrow materials, I can tell you that students are encouraged to read ALL the classics. These include The Diary of Anne Frank, Shakespeare and Mark Twain. As for Dr. Seuss, most children in A.C.E. schools are usually far beyond those books and read such things as The Little House Series in the First and Second Grades. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.105.166 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC). (moved from the article)

There are many problems with the study quoted in the article. It's being there is a copyright violation at the least and I am going to remove it NOW. You will still be able to find a copy here if you need to reference it. Blarneytherinosaur talk 08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a former student, I can tell you that these books - Othello, Catcher in the Rye, etc. were not part of the curriculum. I can also tell you that the students I went to school with all learned to read in public school and that those who didn't learn to read in public school remained poor readers the entire time I was going to school (4th grade til high school graduation). Blarney, I readded some content, but most of it (over half) was cut. I think you were a bit too severe in your removing content and it resulted in poorly representing the overwhelming percentage of studies which are critical of ACE.-198.97.67.56 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed your addition because much of it is likely outdated. Dade Christian School was an ACE school according to that study, but Honors Senior English read Othello this year. --Jorfer 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"likely outdated" is not a reliable source. If it is outdated, provide a source.-75.179.159.240 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid the burden of proof is on proving that a 1986 study is still relevant.--Jorfer 21:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, its not. The burden of proof is on a person making a claim(this comes straight out of Wiki policy). The only claim made in quoting the Berliner study is what the Berliner study said. The only person making a statement as to whether or not it is still relevant is you - therefore it is up to you to source your claim.-75.179.159.240 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote from WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

--Jorfer 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to debate this with you. Wiki policy is very clear. I have readded the content because it is properly sourced from a reliable source. Your contention that it is out of date is what is not sourced. I am readding the content as your removal is unjustified. If you care to create an RfC on this issue, I am willing to go that route. You are trying to get an edit war going, however, and I will not be a participant.-198.97.67.57 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

198.97.67.56 , as to my removal of the direct copy of the Berliner study, and I will say this again, we cannot copy and paste an academic study into an article in bulk. That would be a copyright violation. A quotation is fine, but not such large amounts as I removed. A properly cited paragraph like the one you added about ACT scores should be fine.

Further to the books that are missing, there are a great number of books that could be considered as part of a study of literature, including many from my country of residence that would be particularly relevant to students here, but ACE are never going to make every student they have study Australia specific books. However the company that administers ACE in Australia allows great flexibility in what books may be studied, and students can get credit for them, whether there is a PACE about them or not. Even the Australian principal wrote questions on books for his children to add to the ACE literature. What a shame he hasn't written a paper about it! The public system in Australia has many different curricula for the different states, and I'm sure there are books one omits that are in the others. I wasn't very impressed, though, by Berliner's statements on why books were omited. I didn't see any reference from an ACE representative saying that Romeo and Juliet was "too sexual".

Let's keep cool heads here. ACE is controvercial. We can't do anything about that. Blarneytherinosaur talk 03:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Blarney, I don't think you read the earlier post. The issue is not that you cut out a large section of the Berliner study. Looking over it, it looked to me like it could, in fact, be cut down without a significant loss. It was only being pointed out that, in cutting the article down, you threw the baby out with the bath water - which is why -some- of the article was brought back (though still a far cry from all!) As soon as Jorfer's attempt at an edit war dies down and we can restore the article to the edit before his last edit, you and I will be of one mind regarding the Berliner study - I think. -198.97.67.57 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been no comment as to why the content I've recently added is being deleted - other than an unsupported claim that it may be "out of date". Continued removal of it is strongly suggesting an intent by a number of editors to disregard Wiki policy regarding NPOV. Before I bring the issue to arbitration, I'm here giving people an opportunity to defend their actions.-198.97.67.59 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My initial removal of information was to prevent a copyright violation. It was never meant to be the final version, and properly sourced additions are fine. The section about flags could be sourced and a citation put on the English and Literature section, then all the additions will be properly sourced. The text around the quotes are written quite a lot like the study itself, so they could be reworded, but I don't have a problem with them being in the article, unless there is a source to say it is out of date. (I remember that a number of PACES were revised in the early to mid 90's, but how much I don't know.)

I will say however, that individual schools seem to have a lot of flexability in what they do and do not teach, so what is done at Dade could easily change, even if the curriculum itself doesn't. Blarneytherinosaur talk 08:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jorfor, Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policy on no original research - specifically the part which states, "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article". I highlighted the words of relevance here. If you have any trouble finding Wiki policy, just click on the 'help' link on the left of the screen. Blarney, again, I'm repeating myself to make -sure- you understand. I know your intent in originally removing the information was to avoid copyright issues. The only problem I had with your original edit was that it threw the baby out with the bathwater - a point which my readding content fixed. My issue was with the drive-by-edit done by an editor who hasn't been following this article and with Jorfor who seems bound and determined to violate Wiki policy (whether through ignorance of what Wiki policy is or deliberately I cannot say).-198.97.67.57 11:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

btw, an article was written in Phi Delta Kappa called "ACE Responds" in response to the critical article listed here. I do not have access to that article and such articles need to be accessible to the general group of editors on Wiki before it can be put in the article, however, if one of you wants to take the time to see if there is a source for the article which is accessible, it would help back up the pro-ACE side of the article.-198.97.67.57 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you cannot tell the difference between the requirements for including information in Wikipedia from the ones governing removing it. Notice that I am not publishing information but removing published information that has a poorly dated source.--Jorfer 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Obviously you cannot tell the difference between the requirements for including information in Wikipedia from the ones governing removing it." Because nowhere is such a relevant distinction made in Wiki policies. Again, please familiarize yourself with Wiki policy. The link to the left of your screen marked 'Help' should be of some assistance to you.-75.179.159.240 02:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

It's not acceptable to remove well-sourced information solely because it is "out of date", unless there is a newer reliable source that refutes it. What I would suggest is putting the sourced statement in context, saying that "A 1986 study found that..." and summarizing the study. This would also make the article as a whole no longer "out of date", as the fact that a study found such-and-such in 1986 will always remain true.

I see there has also been a dispute about actually copying and pasting paragraphs from a study. This one is easy: don't do that. Reference it, don't plagiarize it.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that this is still a topic of dispute. 198.97, you didn't really follow my suggestion as your edit summary says, and Jorfer, simply putting back the {{Out of date}} won't help resolve anything. Put the "out-of-date" information in context, with complete sentences saying who said what about ACE when, instead of just putting the year in parentheses, and then you have an article that doesn't need an "out of date" warning. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. How is that effectively different from what I did? I guess I don't understand what you are suggesting. How about providing an example? -198.97.67.58 13:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was looking at the wrong section. Indeed, you did that. Jorfer, what part are you saying is inaccurately out of date now? How would you suggest fixing it? (Don't put on the "out of date" template unless you're willing to have the "discussion on the talk page" it mentions.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am keeping the template as long as that old study is in the article, the source has become an unreliable source due to the time that has passed since the study. Since I know that at least part of this source is out of date, I cannot be satisfied with anything less than removal. Wikipedia policy clearly states that the burden of proof is on the person that adds content, and while I am letting the content stay for now, it would be misleading and POV not to comunicate my fair contention that a 1986 study is at this time, an unreliable source to the readers of this article.--Jorfer 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're playing games with Wikipedia if you want the "Out of date" template to remain permanently on the article. Either find a newer reliable source, or let it stand. A reliable source doesn't become unreliable just because one unreliable source (you) declares it to be. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Since I know that at least part of this source is out of date" If you know that to be true, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable source ("reliable" as per Wikipedia policy) to support it.-198.97.67.57 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer said that I made no suggestion on how to fix the problem, so he took off the the tag; I will give it now then. My suggestion on how to fix it is find a newer study, send a request that a newer one be done to a local university, leave the tag on, or delete it from the article. It is not simply that I am declaring it out of date, but I have analyzed the differences between the study and what I know to come up with the conclusion that the study is out of date like what was done in Talk:Sacha Baron Cohen which discredited the Guardian which is considered under most circumstances a reliable source. WP:OR does not apply to analysis of sources.--Jorfer 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But it does apply to changing the text of the article because of personal knowledge. To make things clearer, besides giving the date., you could add a phrase like "; there apparently is no later study" which can be removed if you find one.People can judge the likelihood of it being still the same if the date is presented; our readers know that curricula and other details can change over a 20 year period.

The Guardian article was impeached as a source based on the comparison of dates and documents. This is altogether different than impeaching a source because you personally now say it is otherwise. DGG 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not simply that I am saying otherwise, but that it is an obviously dated document. The tag should be left up there to notify readers of this and to encorage a newer source to be found, and if none is available, a newer study to be done.--Jorfer 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Newer studies have been done - the article mentions the one done in 2005 - and these studies are congruent with the one you are arguing is out of date. Just because something was written years ago, does not mean it is out of date if the content it is discussing hasn't changed and there is no evidence that the content has changed. Your argument is akin to claiming that a textbook which claims that acceleration by gravity is a constant is out of date simply because it made that claim years ago. Your argument has no basis.-198.97.67.58 15:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If the material is not out of date like in the case of the gravitational constant, then a newer source should be able to be found like in that case. The 2005 study may be congruent with parts of the 1986 study, but there is no reference to Romeo and Juliet and Othello being left out of the curriculum for example, which leaves you with a dated source for those claims not mentioned. Just in case you point out this website I will comment that if a newer article decides to base its information on an old study (which is the case with the 2005 article), that too is likely to be out of date as your content is only as good as your sources. I could also quote the discoverer of the gravitational constant, Newton, arguing alchemy and that would be out of date, even though I wrote the quote this year, and it comes from a respectable source.--Jorfer 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No one would expect a newer source to include all the content of an older source. The burden is on you to find a newer source that actually contradicts the older source -- such as by saying that Romeo and Juliet is now in the curriculum. We wouldn't cite Newton on alchemy because there are many reliable sources saying that alchemy doesn't work. Meanwhile, it is not acceptable, as you propose, to leave the article in a disputed state while we wait for a study that confirms your position -- a study that may never happen, especially if your position turns out to be incorrect. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote from WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

--Jorfer 21:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The content you added was a claim that the source was out of date. The burden of evidence for that claim is on you.-75.179.159.240 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Let Rspeer comment on this as he hasn't before we take off the banner.--Jorfer 21:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Look up. I've been commenting on that. Stop replacing the banner. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So you also feel that adds or restores means removes?--Jorfer 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Put your straw man away and stop wikilawyering. The fact that one particular rule doesn't say anything about removing content doesn't mean it's okay to remove well-sourced content based on nothing but your own beliefs. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You say that is not your position, but that must be your position. Burden of evidence means which side needs more evidence in a conflict, so wikipolicy makes it clear it is sided towards removal of content at the moment in that statement. You need more than a 1986 source to be able to keep something controversial on Wikipedia. A 1986 study is not as you say "well sourced". Current wikipolicy contradicts your statement that "The burden is on you to find a newer source that actually contradicts the older source". I am just telling you how it is.--Jorfer 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appears to be right on the money here. Jorfer (talk · contribs) should go and read User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Remember that readers don't trust you. Personal knowledge that something is wrong, on the part of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor about whom the world can know nothing, does not defeat sources. We don't trust you. We trust sources. So please cite some. Uncle G 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine I found a source. Dade Christian School is an ACE school according to the study, but Romeo and Juliet is included in the 8th grade curriculum here.--Jorfer 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dade is not currently an ACE school. Read [2] -75.179.159.240 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, ACE is not mentioned in the document so does that mean that it is not an ACE school? Second, if Dade Christian is not currently an ACE school, wouldn't that indicate that the document is out dated?--Jorfer 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The school program they describe (AP courses, grades at the end of the semester, etc.) are not part of the ACE system. Also, the fact that one point is out of date does not mean that all of the report is out of date. You must source your claim that the specific part in dispute is out of date. It shouldn't be that hard. You said you have pretty significant experience with ACE. You ought to be abe to find documents from ACE detailing their curriculum. Frankly, I don't understand why the dispute has been going on so long. If what you say is a fact, then why can't your source it?-75.179.159.240 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Source found. Look at the eleventh grade curriculum summary here and it mentions Romeo and Juliet. HTML available here through google.--Jorfer 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The source you identified specifies that the Romeo and Juliet education being offered is not from ACE. That's not a source for your position.-75.179.159.240 14:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems your right; all the ACE material on that site threw me off. I give up; I cannot find any primary sources that concur or contradict the study, so though I might not have enough evidence for an {{out of date}} tag, the section definitely needs an additional sources tag.--Jorfer 19:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

reading list

Is there any data for just why they removed, say, Othello, or are the reasons just the standard reasons people oppose the book--if they are not specifically sourced, they should be removed. Is Mice and Men such a high school standard that its absences is notable?

In the other direction, I made link for the correct spelling of Pilgrim's Progress, but what are the others, exactly? are they notable enough to be in WP? DGG 04:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• The reasons in parentheses are the exact ones given in Berliner's paper (q.v.). Uncle G 01:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• The "In their place are several good books" sentence is POV, I think. What justification do we have that "one of the greatest allegories written" and several unspecified biographies are a "good" replacement for what are usually considered to be some of the greatest plays and novels ever written? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

When my daughter attended an A.C.E. School in Chicago, I encouraged her to read on her own. I did not expect the school to dictate what she read. Because I felt their reading lists where POV. Parents can not just stick a child in to any school, whether A.C.E or public school and let them make all the decisions. I did not expect A.C.E to tell me what games to play, where to go on field trips, and her sports where done at the park district. I am the parent. She graduated from A.C.E. and went to college. Some topics could have been taught or explored better, but I made her homework my business and supplemented what she learned with internet research, field trips and our own books. --Rita Barth (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Rita Barth

ood

I think Jorter has resolved the problem with the out of date tag. DGG 20:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Experience

I'm currently attending an A.C.E. school and would like to say my experience is bittersweet. My school does not have sports teams, dances, and various other things that public schools have. This is an issue that I have to deal with every year, but I still attend this school because its educational system is actually quite impressive. I grow up in a place where the public schools are very poor, and attend a A.C.E. school where our teachers actually do care about us and know Geometry (which my teacher was there 24/7 explaining it every step of the way.) Honestly, I guess the quality of education depends upon the area the school is in. This education is purely dependent upon how much your child wants to learn, if you think that your child will slack off when he or she is responsible for his or her own work then do not bring your child to this school! Cheating is very easy to do in these schools, things happen like students forging signatures in their P.A.C.E.s, circling pages with red pens, cheating on Self Tests (the practice test of the P.A.C.E.,) and even the stealing of Score Key pages! Make sure to constantly ask teachers about your students progress, because some of them will wait to the final two weeks of the quarter to tell you that your child has to complete two more P.A.C.E.'s (which normally take a little under 2 weeks.) If your child is attending a school where he or she has 8 or less weeks in a quarter, then make sure that he or she is doing 6 pages a week in each P.A.C.E. (excluding double P.A.C.E.s which have a reading P.A.C.E. along with an Activity P.A.C.E.) This school doesn't really strike me as just a Protestant school, it's definitely favoring the Baptist church. It includes beliefs like in Jesus' first miracle, he turned water into grape juice (instead of wine.) Your child will usually test in before attending this school, this will determine his or her P.A.C.E number, a P.A.C.E. number is basically the level of work your child is at (the higher the better.) If your child is not bringing in homework for multiple weeks when attending an A.C.E. school, then he or she is probably too low in his or her P.A.C.E. work. Ask the teacher if your child should be doing more pages in the P.A.C.E a day, or if he or she is far enough in his or her work. Make sure the school isn't to conservative, because Arts are not mandatory for A.C.E. schools, your child's soul might be sucked dry, it would be great to make sure he or she is involved in extra curricular activities (such as community sports, instrument lessons, photography classes, dance classes, etc.) Also be as involved as possible! My A.C.E. school just started in 01' so parents are constantly making suggestions that actually are being used by the teachers, such as a praise band, art classes, and P.E. Make sure that you ask the principal about the resume of the Teachers, in some A.C.E. schools they'll throw brand new barely-passing graduate students that attend the youth program at the church.

Hopefully this was helpful, sorry for the lack of grammar or neatness of that big slab of text, but I'm really tired. 

P.S.- Someone should really talk to the A.C.E. board about Othello being ruled out in schools! Especially if their reason is interracial marriages! Classic literature is definitely needed in schools, and Swiss Family Robinson is just dull...

With all due respect, if the grammar you demonstrated in that post is representative of the level of education at your school, there's much that seems to be lacking.-198.97.67.57 18:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this talk page is not a blog, discussion group, or internet forum , and your experience, however interesting, doesn't constitute a reliable source that can be used in the article. As someone attending an ACE school, perhaps you would be in a position to help the article by adding some verifiable sources or adding {{Fact}} tags to any statements that you think are untrue. Thanks — DIEGO ^talk 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nutrality and Disagreement.

As this is to be a nuterally informitive article and not a forum for debate on young earth creationism vs evolutionism course descripions ought to be much broader than those presented. Its well to say that they belive in a young earth based on the Christian Bible but it is not the only thing they are teaching. I suppose if someone must lodge a complaint concerning their beleifs within this article it at least must be placed in a seperete Objections section, seperate even to the critisism of education reserchers section. This would do very well especially because it could provide a certin, solid place for critisims concerning views of gender.

I have made an attempt at generalizing an nuteralizing the article, mostly through puting prespective on statements.

It is also imporant to not that there are only rough guidelines as to how to run an ACE school, schools in general diverge considerably in how they implement this. The philosiphy of the founder by no means dictates the philosiphy of each individual school. Simalarites for sure, but rarely identical.

To reiterate, for this to be nuteral complaints concenring the beleifs of the founders need to be presented in a section seperate from a review of their curriculum. The fact that any of us disagrees with young earth creationism isnt really on key with what we should be trying to present.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlalynet (talk • contribs)

You just changed things to support the ACE point of view. An example is when you said "While some speculate the change is due to a moral offence to the state booklist such as sexuality the most sensible explination would be that since ACE is an independent curriculum they would choose their books independently." That sentence is difficult to understand because of its unclear grammar, contains misspelled words, and most importantly expresses only your own opinion. I've reverted the article to its previous state.

Also, in response to your proposal, neutrality is a function of the statements made in the article and how accurately they represent attributable views on the subject, not of the section layout. Perhaps the article should be reorganized, but a reorganization should be motivated by making this a clearer, better-written article -- not motivated by a point of view. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Knight1000's edit

<quote>specific references that can be verified should to be added; books mentioned are secular, no reason why they would be in a religious school)</quote>

The specific references can be verified (via the sourced reference) and were added. I have no idea what relevance the fact that the books mentioned are secular has to do with anything. "no reason they should be in a religious school" is your POV (and not a POV shared by many - for example, math and science are also secular, should they, too, be removed from ACE?) Your POV shouldn't influence the article. If, however, you can find a reputable source who agrees with you, then put that source in the article.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot verify this source, Quoted in Speck & Prideaux, 1993, p. 284, what is this and how can I verify this without proving it is made up? What is entered doesn't seem to be an exact quote. This needs to be verifiable. Please see Citing_sources. Don't undo peoples edits when the information isn't properly entered or being disputed. Knight1000 (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to what the issue is. All the info needed to find the article is here (it took about three minutes to find it). Go to your local University library and request this article. -198.97.67.58 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no identification this was a journal article. The reference isn't per wiki guidelines and unclear. The wiki reference doesn't even give the journals name or article title. Also, the article looks like it's referencing schools in Australia which may not be applicable to schools in all country's. The wiki entry didn't say anything about that. I going to see if I can request the article and verify the information. I have no problem with verifiable entry's, but disruptive editing hurts the article and wastes readers time. Please review how to enter citations properly, which would have allowed me to find the source in the first place your saying the information is from. Knight1000 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused as to what your role is as an editor of Wikipedia. Deleting material until -you- personally verify it isn't the way Wikipedia works. Certainly, by all means, verify any sources you find questionable. But the simple fact that -you- haven't personally verified all sources in an article doesn't mean that the material should be removed even temporarily. If other editors add content and source that content, then the presumption is that they have verified it (at least until proven otherwise). That's what Wikipedia being a collective effort is about. Also, I believe you skipped the part in the citing sources section which states <quote>If you do not know how to format the citation, provide as much information as you can</quote> This implies that poor citation is not, in itself, a good enough reason to remove content. Removing content is done when content is challenged and the challenge isn't met. In the future, before removing content for bad citation, it would be more productive if you raise that challenge in the talk pages (that is, after all, what the talk pages are here for) and give other editors a chance to respond. -198.97.67.56 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. As of yet, I haven't reviewed all recent edits. Looking at past edits, I find the statement in question appears, and then it's added to, added to, and then the citation appears. Shouldn't that all happen in the reverse?.........odd Knight1000 (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It may have been a new editor figuring his/her way around. Of the 500 or so posts in the history, which posts should I focus on to see what you think is odd? Oh, and while you're checking out the article's history, you might find the history of the talk pages from the same date might shed some light. (That's one of the reasons its a good idea to discuss contentious issues in the talk pages first - it helps to solve riddles down the road.)-198.97.67.56 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian based homeschool

I am trying to get information facts on different christian curriculum available for homeschoolers. Does anyone have recent studies comparing gpa of the homeschooled child with a christian base with other types of homeschool curriculum? Either way, I feel it important to be a teacher to my children. I am of lower income and a vocational degree, and I want to be able to raise my children with my husband not a public school.--Jandreau (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think this belongs in the talk page (the talk page should focus on the article), I think its merits a response. Depending on where you live, there are very good homeschool programs available through your local or state government. The only thing "Christian education" may offer in addition to this is the instilling of values you and your husband feel are appropriate - but I don't see why you'd need special curriculum for this, nor do I see why you'd -want- special curriculum for this (since such curriculum was created by somebody else who probably doesn't share your family values - "Christian" covers a broad range of values from Catholic to Quaker to Apostolic to Landover Baptist.)-198.97.67.56 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Educational philosophy

Maybe I missed it, but it would be nice to know which educational philosophy/ies ACE supports. See Philosophy of education#Educational Philosophy for details. I know the content is Christian, but is it Classical? Essential? Perennial? Outcomes-Based? I presume the method of teaching is Autonomous Learning?

-- TimNelson (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It All Depends on the School

I attended a school that, at the time I attended (1988-1997), used exclusively ACE materials in the Learning Center. I also got a 29 on my first ACT exam at the age of thirteen, placing me in the 94th percentile. Most ACE schools I have seen (twenty or so) include plenty of literature, field trips, and group cooperation. In fact, my own school, Boulevard Christian School, had an extensive library, field trips every single Friday (plus at least four others), and dual offices wherein two students would share a huge workspace. Now, Boulevard was something special, but on exchange trips and at sporting events (we also had multiple sports teams that primarily competed against other ACE schools) I saw very little of the authoritarian, brainwashing subjugation this article would have you believe in. Also, before anyone says anything about it, yes I know this article is about ACE itself, not necessarily the ways in which it is used. The PACE's themselves contained depictions of field trips, sporting events, and group activities. Most of this article is baseless, or at least based on flawed studies by people who probably had their own agendas. The proof that no one who wrote this thing did any research into the subject is in the fact that no one thought to mention that the students of Highland (fictional students in the PACE's) are almost always strictly segregated.

Verifiability and Citations

If statements that may be prejudicial to the subject or organisation under discussion do not have appropriate verification or citation, why are they permitted on Wikipedia? This would seem an attempt to establish a biased view in the reader without any need for appropriate intellectual integrity, would it not? 124.187.42.137 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In need of serious work

This article needs some serious work. First and most importantly, this article is almost completely based on information published by the subject of the article itself. Reliable secondary sources are necessary to verify the claims made in the article. Secondly, the article includes a lot of content that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; detailed information about each and every class and step in the educational process is information overload. Thirdly, the article smacks of a biased point of view, and I have no doubt that people associated with the organization have had a heavy hand in writing this article. I've placed appropriate templates on the article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with these comments. Most of the article strikes me as verging on product promotion -- so I've changed cleanup templates to reflect that. I believe that much of the detailed material about specific features needs to be taken out (or perhaps summarized in a single paragraph). Cgingold (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to be quite wrong. The enormous section of criticism is completely biased against the system. I myself am a graduate of that system, completely unaffiliated with it, and no longer of that religion, but I still blew away ETS's GED, SAT's and CLEP tests. My own direct experience makes nonsense of second-hand criticism. I don't object to criticism if it is balanced and fair, but until it is, I'm eliminating the section as POV. Rusmeister (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is supposed to be critical, that doesn't mean it's biased. The critique is decently sourced, although some of the sources cannot be linked to. What exactly is the problem you see with it? You don't agree with it, or...? 17:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not sourcing, it is POV. The criticism takes half of the entire article. That heavily outweighs any factual information about the article itself. Right now it is heavily biased in favor of those who criticize the system. I'd post my own praise, but it'd be removed as POV - the same reasons for which I've eliminated the section. If there is balance and the criticism doesn't dominate the article as a whole (which it does) then I have no objection to it. As it is, unreasonable bias and POV.Rusmeister (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

college student study

She used the wrong statistics. I don't have her data but it's likely considering effect size that the differences would be meaningless. Also, the Bob Jones study would definitely confounded by choice of school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.192.54 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Credits?

The department of education in Denmark closed Samuelsskolen (a school in Copenhagen) due to the use of this curriculum. I was wondering where high school graduates from a school using this curriculum can continue their education. Are the diplomas accepted by all colleges and universities or do they have to choose certain schools for their continued education?
Covergaard (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The P.A.C.E. started out as what could be called a Workbook type of curriculum and it got a bad rap for that by educators. I just added what is missing in the History as I know it from working there in the computer department. The PACE took a GIANT LEAP when it became Video. This proprietary development by Mr. Cook and Dr. Howard was revolutionary. The coupling of a powerful graphic version of the PACE for Math, Science, Word Building was a result of the marriage of the VHS Video and the PC. The Magnavox electronics was connected to the IBM computer and propelled ACE far ahead of any of its competition at the time. The PACE was far more than just a workbook because it's design was to adjust to the learning rate of an individual student. (That is what made the original curriculum so successful.) With the advent of the powerful Graphics (which are pretty much commonplace now in school curriculum) the PACE took a giant leap into the future of education. The fact that this Video version of a PACE went into every individual office where a student did business everyday is immensely powerful, you can't appreciate it unless you have been forced into the marching madness of Public Education. I could say more but I will wait to see what is being said here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genterprise0 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

I have seen many people posting their personal experiences with the homeschooling curriculum on this talk page. Keep in mind that personal experiences are not reliable sources, and original research (e.g. anecdotes) are not accepted as sources for Wikipedia articles.Jh1234l (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree; however, there isn't a lot of unbiased information about ACE.

Given that A Beka Books and BJU Press are by far the two largest Christian educational publishers, nearly all neutral research that may be done on this subject will be on those two companies. Whatever positive commentary about ACE is generally ACE's own self-promotion of its products.

The main opponent of ACE is a British-based skeptic (Jonny Scaramonga) who's commentary is based solely on his experiences with the curriculum and his opposition of it. His comments have some factual basis but they must be considered in light of his personal choice to leave Christianity. Other bloggers that I have found opposing ACE are referencing Scaramonga and have nothing original to add.Quidam65 (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Good-faith Edit Moved to Talk for Discussion

I removed the following recently-added paragraph from the main article:

It is important to realise that the content critisized is at times taken out of context. ACE is severly against evolution and anything like it, so the conflicts people have with the system are not always in the hope of creating a better system, but to dirty the name of ACE. Some of the following have no grounds for conflict, while others do. Take each statement with a grain of salt. Terrek (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight

I added the undue weight tag. The criticism section is too large and should be abridged to the important ones. Basileias (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good point - I agree. StAnselm (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, the more I read some of the items, Textbooks state that abortion is wrong, evolution is a lie and homosexuals choose to be gay. They teach that "God wants wives to submit to their husbands" and tells kids they can avoid AIDS by following the Bible.

...are not a controversy. They are common views for conservative and Orthodox Christian and sources were climbed into simply to find items to insert in the article. Tempted to tag this POV. Thoughts? Basileias (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the history and English subsections were not in the cited source at all, so I have removed them. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"common views for conservative and Orthodox Christian" - the controversy is usually over public funding slate. -- Callinus (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Educational outcomes

The section about ACT scores really needs a look at and edit. Is an unpublished (available on college website does not equate to published) graduate thesis a reliable source that deserves so much space in the article? I understand the limitations of the thesis are discussed in the article, but those huge limitations (findings based on 32 students' results from one school?!?!?) set alarm bells ringing for me. The author of the original article makes no claims about the generality of the findings, and so as this article is not a comparison of schools in West Virginia I do not see what meaningful information this source can add to the article - it seems to me the material relating to it should be minimised or probably completely removed.

Aside from that the section consists largely of lines lifted straight from the article, no paraphrasing etc. I am not well versed in Wiki guidelines for editing, so have not yet performed any. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.58.204.27 (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In correcting the citation for this thesis my thought pattern did start down these lines. The thesis has been cited by other works. A reliable source reviewing existing primary data and these citations may evidence the scholarly influence of the publication. --Wednesburyunreasonable (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Accelerated Christian Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070512075639/http://www.aceministries.com:80/curriculum/core/curri_core.aspx to http://www.aceministries.com/curriculum/core/curri_core.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070603014556/http://www.aceministries.com:80/curriculum/testingmaterials.aspx to http://www.aceministries.com/curriculum/testingmaterials.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Accelerated Christian Education. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://schooloftomorrow.com/footer/contactus.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://schooloftomorrow.com/aboutus/statementfaith.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aceministries.com/aboutus/TimeLine.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.schooloftomorrow.com/aboutus/whyace.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705033036/http://www.aceministries.com/training/admintraining.aspx to http://www.aceministries.com/training/admintraining.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing criticism from the lede

Please can editors (particularly editors with single issue edits, or IP addresses linked to the company) refrain from removing neutrally worded criticism from the lede. I respectfully remind all editors that MOS:LEAD clearly states “All but the shortest articles should start with Introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more. The lead has no heading; its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs.” qv. As one can see from the overall article page, carefully cited criticism is a significant part of this subject and should not be removed, as it is the aim of the lede to give a balanced overview of the topic. Mramoeba (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing information from the body of text

Where information is supported by reliable sources can single purpose account editors WP:SPA please not remove it in an attempt to remove uncomfortable or controversial information. The company's own website is not an independent or reliable source for information, we use secondary and tertiary sources which assess it, including reliable news media and academic works which have assessed the impact of educational outcomes. Removing reliably sourced material is not removing bias from the article, it is simply whitewashing it. I also remind editors who may have a conflict of interest WP:COI and those accounts created for a single purpose to refrain from editing and gain a broader editing experience before removing material they are unsure of. Mramoeba (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In relation to my last two edits, is anyone else seeing the same problems I listed in my edit summaries? That is to say extraordinary/general claims based on a single account, and reliability problems in relation to using the Heartland Institute as a source for, well, any claim, respectively? Eik Corell (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And paid content on blog sites. Mramoeba (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified - duplicate citations combined

Hi Wikipedians

If necessary please review my edit.

• Amended dead link: Archived from http://www.marshall.edu/etd/masters/kelley-lisa-2005-ma.pdf
• Cominbed with existing: http://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=etd

This citation has been updated to the correct template. Potential issue: The mds.marshall.edu URL target preference for citations is to here whereas the current link is direct to the generated PDF.

Discussion regarding the suitability of the content is in this section above. --Wednesburyunreasonable (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)