Talk:Katy Independent School District

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Houston (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston articles

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Collapse size

This page is a mess, completely. I think for it to function properly most of the timeline needs to be removed, as well as the list of schools. It is the district's responsibility to keep a full timeline, but Wikipedia should just provide a description — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.224.91 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I have added the cleanup tag to flag for other editors to come help clean up the page. This page is mostly set up as a trivia page. The content should be in encyclopeadic post and not list form. I can help clean up some but will need more help. Lots of good information that I don't want to lose. Monkeytheboy (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

So...who's actually a student here?

discipline

It seems that administrators are very discriminating here (in kisd). often, they will make decisions based on your appearances and decide "concequences" on whether they like you or not. how many football players have been disciplined? how many popular students have been disciplined? when will they stop being stupid?

Comment: When will you learn how to spell "consequences?"

I'll let you in on a secret all schools do taht. deal with it. (maybe join a sport)

Banning of Wikipedia at KISD

It was claimed that the open editing of Wikipedia is why the source is banned at KISD. However the assertion that the content is bad because it can be edited does not pass muster. As stated in the article most bad edits are quickly reverted and pages that get out of hand can be locked. --Claygate 20:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but what happens to the poor kid who used the site before the incorrect information was corrected? There are professionally edited encyclopedias on the Internet, so why use potentially bad information?

Any site that can be edited by anyone should not be used as a reference by students. Many students have difficulty understanding the concept that not everything on the Internet is true as is. A site that claims to be an encylopedia while having the ability to be edited by an 11 year old truly adds to the confusion.

Encylopedias should present a balanced view of things. When viewing the historical controversies, there is a link to an extremely biased site. Where is the opposing view?

-- 205.196.188.13

Rather than ban a site, why doesn't the school educate its students about the pros and cons of different sources of information on the Internet? If they're going to ban it they might as well ban much of the Internet because many sites can potentially be contributed by your example "eleven-year old". However, young people often have something useful to say and many contributions have been made by high school students in areas they have studied. Censorship shouldn't be used as a substitute for responsible education in the school district. --Claygate 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please try to balance the part of the article on special education with respect to NPOV as suggested by 205.196.188.13? I can't find enough information about it. --Claygate 20:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the general Internet and Wikipedia in terms of credibility for an 11 year old or any regular student, is that Wikipedia promotes itself as an encyclopedia giving students the impression that all the information they find is accurate. Yes, website evaluation is an integral part of our computer education and research process, and in an utopian society, all of our students would seek out the sources and research guides provided by Wikipedia. However, in the real world of elementary, jr. high, and high school, students do not delve as indepthly as they are instructed and typically take the first piece of information they come across. Whenever possible we encourage our students to use professionally reviewed sources that are readily available through district databases and library resources. These professional resources include footnotes and additional resources that Wikipedia does not.

As an example, the original article about why the site was blocked was completely inaccurate. If a student had read the article before it was corrected, they would not have thought, or cared, to go back later and see if it had been corrected by anyone.

Censorship is not being used in place of education - it's called selection. If students still want to use Wikipedia at home, they certainly can although whether or not their teacher will accept it is another matter. -- 205.196.188.13

I appreciate your concerns and also recommend to keep encouraging students to not use one resource and be done with it, even with the "professionally-reviewed" encyclopedias (encourage critical thinking). Most Wikipedia mainstream articles (of which the KISD article is decidedly not in that category) are very well cited and referenced. The cross-referencing encourages the use of multiple resources which will benefit the students in the long run by encouraging them to think. Limiting access to collaborative information really doesn't help that much. --Claygate 21:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to the KISD computer administrator or other KISD technology officers

From the interesting edits on the "current controversies" section of the KISD page it can be inferred that 205.196.188.13 and 67.15.100.210 are affiliated with KISD administration. Maybe I'm wrong but anyhow this is my question to you.

You (KISD) probably block Wikipedia for its lack of credibility (the 11-year-old argument) based on the edits I have seen. However, it is impossible to block all untrue information on the internet. Why did you choose to block Wikipedia but not other sites? And why did you wait until November of 2005 to block Wikipedia?

Also based on the history tab, 205.196.188.135 and 67.15.100.210 have been editing and using Wikipedia after the beginning of November when Wikipedia was blocked. If Wikipedia is such an untrue source why do you continue to use it? And how many 11-year-olds edit articles titled “Korean Romanization”?

-- andman8

As far as I know, nobody who has responded is an administrator. Someone showed a couple of groups of us the inaccurate and quite comical reason you had originally listed that the site was blocked. Personally, I would not have visited the site if it wasn’t for that reason. It did validate the reason the site was blocked, though. The bias of the special education blurb also adds to the lack of reliability of some of the articles.

Teachers are always reminding students that not everything on the Internet is true. We remind them that books (and online databases) have editors and information has been checked for reliability. In contrast, we teach them that anyone who can access the Internet can create a website, and nobody is checking these pages for accuracy. Wikipedia probably would not be blocked if it didn’t call itself an encyclopedia.

Let’s forget the 11 year old argument for a second. Any site that could let Pat Buchanan edit an “encyclopedia” article about the DNC or let someone from moveon.org edit an article about George Bush is going to have a few reliability issues.

Staff members can still access the site. Students are always encouraged to begin researching using the Katy ISD online databases. They are also encouraged to use more than one of the databases (which include more than just encyclopedias) in their work.

While it’s wonderful that Wikipedia gives suggestions to check the validity of the site. Anyone who has taught knows all too well that the average student (especially at the junior high and elementary school levels) will not take the time to do the additional research. Who can blame them when there are other proven routes to take? I would be curious to hear if you have ever taught students at this level.

What began as a good chuckle about why the site was blocked has begun to take up a bit of my time, so I bid you farewell. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Maybe a couple of other people who have responded will be able to add to your discussion. -- 66.170.198.199

Well, thanks for your time. I'm sure that if you'd allow your students to access Wikipedia they would also be able to engage in direct feedback/questions with subject matter experts in a given field of study. I'm sure that it has already happened on some occasions in the past with KISD students. These students are likely smarter and more motivated than you seem to give credit.

--Claygate 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know, scratch that, who on this green earth knows what goes through Dr. Merrell's head. For instance, there was complaining about how the district has little money to work with. How can they when they build a center for basketball and volleyball in a district that does not do well in the state of Texas overall during the past many years in those sports. Also it is a center where each school has their graduation. Let me tell you something, that infernal building is not big enough to host graduation. They had to send parents to a neighboring Praforming Arts Center to watch the graduation from the projectors. Why was graduation in The Relient Arena so terrible?

Why dont people approve of open-source projects?!?!?!? I guess its sort of like that battle between Microsoft and Linux.

The Accuracy

Here's a question, is the KISD article accurate? It doesn't sound accurate - "sex with animals." --Timestopper 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It happened in 93 so there's not a lot on the Internet about it. This particular article mentions some of the details, but is no longer in "print". [1] --Claygate 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

theme parks

"The talk of the Katyisd theme park is high controversey due to the estimated price of the park to be around 13.5 million dollars." This claim is unverified, if whoever wrote this can find a reference i'll put it back on. Andman8 01:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayde Creek Elementary

Mayde Creek Elemenary is definitely older than 1989. My brother was there in the 1984-85 year.

Golbow was built in 1989-90.

Thanks, Mayde Creek Ele was built in 1983. I did find this in the archives. Thanks for the correction. ch911

Discussion of this article at the WP Schools talk page

There is currently a discussion of this article on the Wiki Project Schools talk page. --Hebisddave 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Katy ISD.gif

Image:Katy ISD.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Info

I have removed several blatant acts of vandalism to this article. Information that is not sourced, or information that can easily be refuted is subject to removal. Jacksinterweb (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? I re-added the templates for Katy ISD, TEA rating, and Houston, TX. In the edit where you removed them, the summary said you were removing vandalized tables. I looked at the history for all three and didn't see any vandalism, so I'm not sure if I understood what you were doing.

You also removed three dead links. Two of them pertained to the Feb. 2006 lawsuit. I was able to find a new source, used WebCite to make a permanent online cite-able backup, and added it as a reference. The third dead link was just titled "Racial evidence"...I could try to infer what the original poster was aiming for, but it seems a little ambiguous and I really don't have any idea, so I left it. --Hebisddave (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the table is in error, to my eyes it reads that KISD is "academically acceptable" when according to the state it is listed as "exemplary". Perhaps if you find something that backs up the AA rating then it can stand as is (I have no KISD agenda, pro or con, so if you find something to support AA, then AA it is). This whole article is a mess, from inappropriate timeline to its newsletter type style. I'm glad to see someone take an interest in "fixing" it. Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you changed it to exemplary, which looks great to me. I just didn't want it deleted altogether. :) (I'm like you - no KISD association and somewhat in awe of the timeline.) --Hebisddave (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese name

According to "德州簡訊." by the Epoch Times, "Katy" is "科提" so the Chinese name would be "科提獨立學區." WhisperToMe (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And http://www.jiviolinschool.com/honorroll-wz-pic/hono-04.htm uses "凯蒂学区" WhisperToMe (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald Junior High would be 麦当劳中学 - http://www.jiviolinschool.com/honorroll-wz-pic/hono-07.htm

Cinco Ranch Junior High would be 新科阮奇中学 - http://www.jiviolinschool.com/honorroll-wz-pic/hono-09.htm

Hayes Elementary would be 嗨斯小学 - http://www.jiviolinschool.com/honorroll-wz-pic/hono-10.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic students at Exley Elementary

I saw [this press release] from the National Autism Association. Has there been coverage of this in reliable sources? If so, perhaps it should be mentioned in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish documents

http://www.katyisd.org/esl/Documents/Parent%20Center%20Brochure.pdf

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Katy Independent School District. 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/20111001064757/http://www.katycitizens.org/index_files/Page8501.htm to http://www.katycitizens.org/index_files/Page8501.htm

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Katy Independent School District. 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://www.katycitizens.org/index_files/Page8501.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326000000/http://www.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/list-1982.pdf to http://www.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/list-1982.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326000000/http://www.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/list-1982.pdf to http://www.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/list-1982.pdf

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) 09:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]