Talk:Toronto District School Board

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About the list[edit]

There are 558 public schools in the system. It seems hopeless to try and keep a list of all of them, and arbitrarly picking a just a few elems and a junior to be included. At most, we should list the high schools, and some special elems/middle schools. --Rob 23:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had started working on a table of schools to insert into the article, or perhaps to have as a secondary Schools of the Toronto District School Board page. However, with the recent work I put into Peel District School Board to list just 221 schools, I think it is unlikely I'm going to come up with a nice and maintainable way to represent this information. I'm stumped for now as to what to do about this school board's list of schools. --Stephane Charette 05:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are four publically funded boards in the Toronto area. The article fails to mention the Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud. This is an oversight that should be corrected.

The Wiki page states that Sheila Ward is the Chair of the TDSB. She is the past Chair. The new one is Trustee John Campbell. This should be corrected.

Controversies section 2[edit]

Is this someone's personal vendetta against the board?

Yes with one of the largest school board on the continent consisting of 6 former city school boards there will be controversies!!! To list each and everyone of them is ridiculous. Cities and government are ridiculous at letting things slide and not doing mandatory checks and cross checks but this is just giving more scraps to the the rich who are quick to flee to private schools, instead of supporting a strong public education system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.178.19 (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


WAKE up. All of you parents WAKEUP. The TDSB is not about education for children, it is about perpetual jobs with endless pensions for the staff. Right now all quadrants of the TDSB are in a head count war, as in the more students in my school the less likely I will be loosing my work contract, with the actual education process only operating as a cruise vehicle for that indexed pension. There is some lip service given to the students but do not fool yourself, it is all about their jobs and nothing more. Trustees work against each other trying to get special programs in their wards to out gun the other wards in city. In lot of cases the trustees are funded by the OTF or other unions involved in the system and are not really looking out for the best interests of the parents and their children.

So yes someone is simply starting to peel back the facade and expose the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.67.22 (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section[edit]

This section is clearly written from a non-neutral point of view. The statements, although factually correct, present only a one-sided view of the truth. They should be reworded to present both sides of the story. In addition, they have unnecessary or irrelevant details in them. This is the article on the TDSB, not on the individuals named. Remeber also Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or website to air dirty laundry about a subject. Flyguy649 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following section subsumed under Controversies is in need of work.

"What’s very disturbing about this is that Ms. Pantalone could return to her previous duties, according to Grant Bowers a Lawyer representing the Toronto District School Board said that "It's quite possible she'll end up back in her old position," [4]"...

This sounds suspiciously like POV. The source [4] given for the above statement reflects only the above laywer's conjecture; the rest regarding the poster's feeling disturbed is non-neutral point of view. The existence of the publication ban limits the scope of facts made privy to the general public, apart from the defendant's arrest, charge, and general trial outcome.

In light of the original poster's inclination for NPOV, I also question the link of the defendant to the Deputy Mayor of Toronto. The link serves no logical or rational purpose in bridging this particular controversy to another unrelated issue, apart from bloodlines. The controversy dealt solely with the defendant as a professional employed by the Toronto District School Board, and not because of her family ties. I'd like to see the link to the Deputy removed since his being a politician is not germane to any TDSB controversies.

And on a final note, there are several errors in punctuation that spot this article. Erikkukun 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the article does is state facts and does show both sides of the story where avaiable Eg benefits of the coke contract recieving $400,000.00 aunnually. Most of the other side of the story is that the school board was guilty on all accounts. If you still think it should be reworded in a non-neutral way then rewrite it. --Disengaged 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished reading the entire TDSB controversies section and it is obvious that this article is in dire need of a rewrite. My bone(s) of contention: There are no official sources to substantiate TDSB's entering into financial relationships with Dell, as well as a lack of sources to substantiate this article's very detailed claims of computer purchases ["Two identical computers were compared (sic) that are both offered from Dell, purchased through the TDSB agreement from a price-list created on January 25, 2006 costs the school $1365.48 (before taxes) while the exact same machine was offered for sale on Dell computers website to the general public for $1357.00 (before taxes)."] This could be hearsay for all we know.

It's also apparent from the writing in this particular article that this article (in its entirety, perhaps) is in need of attention regarding basic grammar and punctuation.Erikkukun 19:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of mispelling or neutrality. I think that the 'Controversies' section is a necessity to the article. I think it should be re-inserted (and) or re-written. (1sttomars 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with the above user, the "Controversies" section is needed here. Controversies from this school board consistently fill the newspapers, right now a quick google search, you will find many articles about the school board "black-only" school proposal, promoting Racial segregation that has raised serious concerns with people of all faiths and backgrounds. Not to long ago it was about the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that was implemented. Everyday, for years, I read articles in newspapers about this alleged corrupt school board. The controversy goes with the territory with this school board. In 2002 the Province even was forced in to seize control over this school board, the first time ever in the country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.87.35 (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that we need the Controversies section so that an accurate picture of the TDSB is painted through Wikipedia. Who is with me in putting the section back in? Zweinstein (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. Why don't we just make a new article called TDSB Controversies and put all of the controversies information in there instead. Would that make people happier? Zweinstein (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a major violator of WP:UNDUE. There is no need to log every minor scandal and controversy in this article. I've reordered the section, and cut some of the minor incidents. I've cut most of those that don't have any evidence of widespread media attention. - SimonP (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another little WP:UNDUE. What is the point of mentioning that Nemiroff was endorsed by the communist newspaper? A selective presentation of facts that is intended to elicit biases? Does this have something to do with the candidate qualifications for the job? Are we just making sure that the voters know about this for the next time around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter9291 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for UNDUE weight. TDSB has many important aspects, and things more important than these controversies. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Here is the Main district map (Archive) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDSB and Japan relief[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese translations[edit]

For some reason I can't find Japanese documents on the site. Non-TDSB websites use "トロント地区教育委員会" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove section: List of trustees[edit]

It is proposed to remove this section per:

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree, and believe that list of Trustees is an important part of the article. Please explain how this contravenes WP:Source list and WP:LISTBIO -- Ntb613 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake hijab-cutting story criticism[edit]

I am adding the following source:

"An attacker did not cut her hijab, police say. But why did the TDSB let the tearful 11-year-old face the cameras?". thestar.com.

Presently in a new section. Can anyone think of an existing section this would fit under? ScratchMarshall (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toronto_District_School_Board&oldid=1210741158"