Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:58, 3 June 2012

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Schools C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

• Talk:Family Foundation School/Archive 1 (21 July 2008 - 4 August 2008)
• Talk:Family Foundation School/Archive 2 (8 November 2008 - 9 January 2009)
• Talk:Family Foundation School/Archive 3 (7 January 2009 - 18 February 2009)
• Talk:Family Foundation School/Archive 4 (17 March 2009 - 8 November 2009)
• Talk:Family Foundation School/Archive 5 (12 November 2009 - 8 January 2010)
• Talk:Family Foundation School/Archive 6 (9 January 2010 - 22 January 2010)
• Talk:Family Foundation School/Archive 7 (22 January 2010 - 9 April 2010)
• Talk:Family Foundation School/Archive 8 (27 May 2010 - 14 June 2010, plus off-topic post from 18 January 2011)

2010 New York State Investigation Section

This section was reverted out of the article chiefly because:

• The Family Foundation School Truth website has been repeatedly rejected as a WP:RS;
• The referenced letters on said site are as such not a matter of "public" record as the author claimed in the edit summary;
• The content in said letters raises WP:BLP concerns which may be immediately deleted from Misplaced Pages.

If the subject material addressed in this section can be included and properly cited using content from a WP:RS and steering clear of WP:BLP issues, then it may be resubmitted.

- Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 14:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The TRUTH site may have not been a reliable source as the content and editorials on the site, although it clearly states at the end of the investigation letter from the State that the letter should be responded to within 30 days because it will be released upon request of the public, in accordance with Freedom of Information Laws. The TRUTH Campaign forging these letters would be illegal and the letters are clearly legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.46.63 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is immaterial. The fact that these sources are available only on the so-called "truth" site is at the core of the WP:RS issue. Please read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Again, if this content can be supported in a way that addresses those issues, it can stay in. Until then, it's out. If you feel I'm in error, I invite you to take the matter to WP:ANI, but please do not WP:WAR. Also, please sign in, and sign your posts with four tildes. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is obviously biased against ANY negative things. The school clearly has violated a number of human rights, as can see posted through the Family School's own blog, where Rita Argiros, owner of the school says that she acknowledges things that were done in the past were wrong. The State investigation is a reliable source. Is wikiwag attempting to say that the State of NEW YORK is not a reliable source? Revert Flyboi9 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you, Flyboi9. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for prosecuting smear campaigns (see WP:SOAP) -- and the lengthy material that Flyboi9 has repeatedly added to the article is part of a smear campaign. As for the source provided, it's a primary source, which is generally not a good basis for an article. Furthermore, if the only entity that has published this information is the Family Truth Campaign, there is some question of its validity. Misplaced Pages could cite a news report on the investigation -- that would be a reliable source and non-primary. Does such exist? --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I added brief significant info about the NYS investigation back into the article, in the history section. I have cited via the FFS leadership page. It is of significant importance and belongs there. Given the amount of discussion, namely that some info on the investigation needs to be included, I would argue that there is a concensus that it should be included. I hereby would like to call into question the NPOV of Orlady - as she claims to have an interest in CT and RI states, I question wheteher or not she has been previously involved with either East Ridge or FFS (given the RI and CT connection i am leaning towards East Ridge). I find her excuse of DNS resolution errors difficult to believe. If I am wrong in my guess, I apologize. But you must admit it looks fishy suddenly having such a DNS issue, same day a RS is found, after so many reverts forWP:RS I hereby ask that she recuse herself from editing or reverting this page further. Snertking (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Evaluation of the NYS Investigation

The only source that has been provided for this section (which I just now deleted again) is a New York State letter posted to the Family Truth website (cited as if it's two different items, but both point to this PDF. It's probably a real NYS letter, but in view of FamilyTruth's POV, we can't assume that it is valid. Furthermore, this is a primary source, which can be problematic. If the link were a reliable source, the lengthy list of items that Flyboi9 and anon IPs have added to the article would still be undue emphasis for an encyclopedia. Moreover, my reading of the letter indicates to me that there's been some POV in selecting things to describe from the letter. This is just an inspection report (from a surprise inspection), not an official finding. The first salient statement in the letter (conveniently ignored by the folks who want to add it to the article) is "Although allegations were brought to our attention that students were being physically abused and neglected, interviews we conducted did not suggest students were being physically abused or neglected at the time of the visit." The subsequent discussion goes into great detail. In addition to the details selected for the article, representative items include concern that towels aren't labeled (so kids might be using each other's towels), that there are no ladders on upper bunk beds, and that kids who do not score a 75% on a pre-test are not permitted to take the Regents Exam. What the people adding this to article call "Inadequate nighttime staffing" is a concern that "there is only one staff member awake and on duty during the overnight hours" (others who are on the premises are asleep) -- if you think of this place as a prison, that's inadequate, but if it's a school it's hardly worth worrying about (it's one person more than is awake all night in most school dormitories, not to mention private homes). I could continue along that vein, but my point is that a letter report on a surprise inspection is very raw information, not suitable for an encyclopedia article, and very much subject to interpretation. Wait for an official report issued by the NYS authorities that puts these raw details into perspective. Ideally, wait for a newspaper account of that report, so it's not Wikipedians picking and choosing information from the state report to include in the article.

For what it's worth, the state report provides a disturbing "snapshot" view of the school, but that's just my opinion and not a basis for an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

current edit quotes letter as stating no abuse was evident at time of visit, but that allegations of past abuse were found to be credible. I tried to keep it as brief as possible to avoid undue prominence. As this investigation was a significant past event, it belongs in history. Giving it a separate section would give it undue prominence. No official "report" will likely ever be forthcomimg - the letters serve this purpose. Nor do i expect newspaper articles will be written about an event now 1 year past. Snertking (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Orlady, if you look at the TRUTH's website, Mike Argiros, the owner of the school writes an official response to the State's investigation. Why would the State not complete a "surprise" visit when the school has been the center of so many abuse reports, that all these wikipedians continue to fight to keep out of the article (NOT a personal attack on anyone). The State's investigation is official and on the record. This should be included and, just like the past issues on this "school's" page, probably will have arguments against inclusion. The school has children with serious mental health issues. They obviously need the overnight staffing fixed if they have to "landlock" kids in beds. This is a reliable source and should be included as it is an official State investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.46.63 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now The Family Foundation School has posted the investigation onto their blog website (http://thefamilyschoolleadership.com/update-on-the-cqc-investigation-of-the-family-foundation-school/), which is directly linked from their main website, proving they own the site and its from the reliable source. Reverting to include the State Investigation. Flyboi9 (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've once again removed this section from the article. Yes, the reliable source problem may largely have been solved but the section still has several other issues. Firstly I think the length and format of the section gives the issue WP:UNDUE prominence in the article. I also have concerns that it does not adhere to WP:NPOV in both the way it's worded and the fact that it makes no mention of the schools response. As a more minor issue the way it is presented as a list is not normal for a[REDACTED] article and the references are badly formatted. This needs to be discussed on this talk page and the content agreed before it is added to the article. Dpmuk (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we resolved the reliable source issue, if another editor believes the content is biased, please edit to include other investigation details that would make it unbiased. I believe that the section is unbiased and it inclusion is necessary to be a proper WIKI article. Flyboi9 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue of reliability may have been addressed, but these are still primary sources and this is still a severe case of WP:UNDUE emphasis. I removed Flyboi9's latest addition to the article. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC) PS - Adding more details to a novella-length litany of minor details is hardly a cure for the WP:UNDUE problem. --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have edited and put very brief info that school was investigated due to allegations of abuse, followed by quote from state's letter, citing family school leadership as as source. I see no way you can possibly claim WP:UNDUE when all there is now is a simple statement that the school was investigated for abuse, with a list of the agencies investigating, followed by a quote of their findings. hmmm... i will add the FFS's response in there just to make sure. Snertking (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

An anon (Flyboi9 editing while logged out?) just posted a new version of this section. It was much improved, but I reverted it because it's still not "ready for prime time." Biggest problem is that it's unsourced -- except for the final paragraph, which is an inappropriate advert for familytruth. However, it also still puts far too much emphasis on a single event, and the statement about the school's response is anti-FFS POV. Please discuss it -- and work on revising it -- here before restoring it to the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What I do not understand is that if an anon user took the time to edit it, which you admit is much improved, why are you not editing it to see how we can keep it included? I am not going to keep editing and editing until you approve, can you work on it so we can see where you see the issues? This is ridiculous. You all are complaining its not POV, UNDUE, RS, but no one is doing anything to fix it besides me and some other user. This is absolutely ridiculous that I have attempted several times to keep it neutral and I get the edit war warnings, but you are the ones who refuse to help out so it can be as WIKI friendly as possible....come one, let's fix this up together Flyboi9 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You still continue to revert despite being told that's not how we do things - we get consensus before making controversial changes. Discuss the text you want to insert here - indeed you could put it all here for now for people to discuss. Once we have all (including you) agreed upon a version, then and only then, will it be added. Dpmuk (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now reverted. Although I agree this version is much better it still has many problems. In particular and in addition to Orlady's concerns) I am particularly worried about the paragraph on the school's response which seems to have been written in a way delibrately negative to the school and so which violates wP:NPOV. Examples of this include the word "claiming" (instead of the more neutal stating or similar) and "only a school" (instead of the more neutral "instead a school"). Dpmuk (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Below is the section with even more edits to make the school's response more of a neutral one. Please make edits that you feel would help to enhance the section for inclusion in the article. 24.90.46.63 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of this will need to remain on hold for now -- I am getting DNS errors when I try to access thefamilyschoolleadership.com. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I find that a bit too convenient to be credible. Just when they find an undeniably neutral source you can't resolve the DNS of said page. Snertking (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is where edits should be made to enhance the section for inclusion in the article

2010 New York State Investigation

On June 10 and 11, 2010, the New York State Commission on Quality of Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (the Commission), New York State Education Department (SED), New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH), and New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) conducted an unannounced visit to the Family Foundation School, to investigate a number of complaints brought to the Commission’s attention involving students between 14-19 years of age.

The State did not uncover evidence that physical abuse was occurring but the visit uncovered evidence that caused investigators concern, including overcrowding in dormitories, possible hygiene, fire, and safety hazards, Inadequate nighttime staffing, Students exercising inappropriate supervisory and clinical responsibility over other students, Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) inappropriately supervised in accordance with New York State Education Department standards, Students inappropriately encouraged or allowed to take part in restraining other students (taking down peers in distress as well as holding another student’s legs until staff arrived, for example), Group sharing exercises known as “table topics” that can sometimes be utilized in a manner that may compromise the mental health problems of some students, The school does not have a system that reviews complaints of abuse and neglect.

The School responded to the State's investigation claiming they are "not a treatment facility" and instead are a school and they would "resist efforts to equate our purposes, goals and methods with those" used at treatment facilities. The School's owner defended their position as just a school and denied most of the serious concerns the State investigators claimed in their completed investigation. According to the School, however, they did respond to some of the concerns, including no longer using the isolation room as a form of punishment.

The full investigation was first posted publicly by a group of former Family Foundation School students on an youth rights activist website, The Family Foundation School Truth Campaign , but was then also published by the school on one of their administration blog websites a few weeks later in order to be "cooperative and forthcoming"

Status as a school

I have done some search on the homepage of the New York State - Office of Children & Family Services. I find that the facility was licensed as a Day Care Center. The record is here. It was licensed to house fewer children than stated on their homepage. The license was inactive on January 11, 2010.

Is there not records showing the status regarding status as school somewhere? I remember that the State of New York are very strict when it is a question of calling a facility a school. There was a case involving the now closed Academy at Ivy Ridge.
Covergaard (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that they have an inactive license for a day care center does not provide any indication of the school's status as a school. the Office of Children & Family Services doesn't give licenses to high schools, AFAICT. However, I find that in in 2006 the University of the State of New York (aka the Board of Regents, the New York State's authority over schools) amended the school's charter to allow it to operate a day care center, in addition to the school function. The fact that the day care license is inactive is not relevant to FFS' authorization to operate a school. --Orlady (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose moving Congressional hearings section up

The two items that make this school noteworthy are Wells Thompson being an alumni and the fact that it was the subject of testimony by 2 former students before congress. I would argue that of the two, being the subject of congressional testimony is the more noteworthy. In fact, were it not for said testimony, I really don't think the school would qualify as notable enough to rate it's own article, as Wells Thompson being a graduate of this school really does not make it all that noteworthy. If that were true every high school to graduate a professional athlete would be noteworthy enough for it's own article. Therefore I hereby propose moving the congressional testimony section higher in the article, as this would clearly not be wp:undue, as it is the schools primary "claim to fame"

Snertking (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. The structure of Misplaced Pages articles does not follow the newspaper-article inverted-pyramid format in which the information deemed of most interest goes first. Instead, we attempt to follow the WP:Lead section with a fairly predictable topical structure. This article is not necessarily ideally structured, but the sequence of "History", "Programs", and "Accreditation and affiliations" is fairly typical. It could be argued that Congressional hearings" and "State inspections" are subtopics of "History", except that the level of detail in those sections is currently so disproportionate to that found in the rest of "History". --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and i did not intend imply it should be placed above the lead section by any means. I see your point about predictable structure and agree with that as well. However, would you say it is fair that there should be some mention at least that the school has been the subject of controversy in the lead in? Nothing big, perhaps even just adding the adjective "controversial" to the opening sentence. You really can't say that would be wp:undue.

1. "Family Foundation Truth Campaign Press Release" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-12-28.
2. "Family Foundation School investigation releae". Retrieved 2011-1-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

• C-Class school articles
• Mid-importance school articles