Talk:Stride, Inc.

David George comment
Hello,

My name is Dave George, and I’m an employee at K12. I’m here to provide any kind of information that will help you improve K12’s Wikipedia page.

I noticed that the page needs a citation for the following paragraph:

At the end of the year, the students are required to take the same state standardized test as a typical "brick and mortar" school.[citation needed]

Because K12 operates schools on a state-by-state basis, media coverage is most often state-specific, rather than referring to K12 as a whole. For that reason, it’s not easy to find a third-party source which describes K12’s state testing standards nationwide. However, I have provided two links that I hope will meet Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. Please let me know if there is other information needed – either here or on my Talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DavidLGeorge). Here are the links:

The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/education/01virtual.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

“Legally, they are considered public school students, not home-schoolers, because their online schools are taxpayer-financed and subject to federal testing requirements.”

Our corporate website makes clear that we do abide by state standards: http://k12.com/what-is-k12/how-k12-programs-work/

“State standards are adhered to, with required attendance, standardized testing, and rigorous assessments.”

Thanks,

David L. George, Director of Social Media, K12, Inc. 14:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I Recreated this article, because I have experience creating articles on products and companies, without advertising them. I even added a section about K12's "controversies". If there is any problem at all with my version of the article, send me a message.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I just made some deletions regarding claims that 1.) K12 is the worst school in the MidWest and 2.) K12 did an interview in which they stated that they are in it for the money rather than education. I did not see any article/study references supporting this information. Please point us in the right direction via a reference if these claims are legitimate and my edits are unjustified. Thanks, everyone! TraceyLynn (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I do k12 and #1 is so not true. #2 might be, if I've got my facts right, but I don't really know.

Anyways, if you need anything done to the article where you need someone with first-hand experience, gimme a holler. :)

CSD Nomination
I nominated this article for speedy deletion. It is a recreation of a page that has been deleted six or seven times. It is advertising and meets several of the criteria for speedy deletion.Loquitor (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This page doesn't need to be deleted
K12 is a major curriculm provider. It provides curriculm for 50 or so virtual schools and a hundred or so public schools. This article is written to show how the school works, not to advertise. As for the statement that the article was deleted 6-7 times it has only been deleted twice, and both times it was deleted for being an advertisement. This article is written from a neutral point of view. There is no statement that says it is better than another curriculm provider, it just states what the company history and what the curriculm provider offers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.15.172 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, here is this article's "Deletion log". I count 7 deletions. - Dravecky (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 16:26, December 20, 2007 Tijuana Brass (talk | contribs | block) deleted "K12 Inc." ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something.) (view/restore)
 * 21:46, April 17, 2007 Cbrown1023 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "K12 Inc." ‎ (content was: 'deletedarticle') (view/restore)
 * 14:17, February 22, 2007 Kafziel (talk | contribs | block) deleted "K12 Inc." ‎ (g11) (view/restore)
 * 14:07, January 4, 2007 Fang Aili (talk | contribs | block) deleted "K12 Inc." ‎ (G11 advertising) (view/restore)
 * 08:20, October 20, 2006 Fang Aili (talk | contribs | block) deleted "K12 Inc." ‎ (G11) (view/restore)
 * 19:43, October 8, 2006 Merope (talk | contribs | block) deleted "K12 Inc." ‎ (CSD A1; content was: 'K12 Inc. Education for a Lifetime' (and the only contributor was 'Canada96')) (view/restore)
 * 10:06, October 3, 2006 GraemeL (talk | contribs | block) deleted "K12 Inc." ‎ (copyvio / spam) (view/restore)

Washington Post story
Here's a story from the Washington Post that may help make this entry meet WP:NPOV.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/virtual-schools-are-multiplying-but-some-question-their-educational-value/2011/11/22/gIQANUzkzN_story.html Virtual schools are multiplying, but some question their educational value By Lyndsey Layton and Emma Brown, Published: November 26 -- Nbauman (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's another one.


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/education/online-schools-score-better-on-wall-street-than-in-classrooms.html
 * Profits and Questions at Online Charter Schools
 * By STEPHANIE SAUL
 * Published: December 12, 2011 --Nbauman (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new draft
I would like to propose an updated version of this article. As an employee of K12, I have an obvious conflict of interest, but I (and the company as well) have a great respect for Wikipedia and have no desire to use it for promotional purposes. While I am somewhat new to Wikipedia, I have tried to acquaint myself with relevant Wikipedia policies, such as WP:Conflict of interest, especially WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, along with WP:Verifiability and WP:identifying reliable sources.

My new article draft is in my user space here. It addresses three main areas of the existing article.


 * Corrects some information regarding the company's founding
 * Revises the outdated products section to more accurately describe the products as they currently exist
 * Reorganizes the various controversies into a single section to make it easier to follow

I have tried to provided citations to WP:RS for each statement, and most are available online. I have also tried to present a balanced view of the subject matter, especially with regard to the controversies section, but, as noted above, I am aware that I have a conflict of interest. I would greatly appreciate feedback on this draft and ideally would like to incorporate these edits into the article following an appropriate review by the Wikipedia community. Thank you! Agmacq (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest.


 * I write (and sometimes edit) professionally.


 * I did a quick review. (Comparing 2 versions of an article in detail is a lot of work, especially without redlining.)


 * This doesn't work.


 * The first thing I notice is that the introduction in the original version gives the controversies. Your version doesn't. WP:LEAD says, "including any prominent controversies."


 * The second thing I noticed is that you organized the criticisms, which is good -- but you followed every criticism with a rebuttal, many of them statements by the company. I realize the value of giving both sides of the controversy, which I think is important, but if you pair every criticism with a rebuttal by the company, it's not an WP:NPOV story any more, it's an advocacy brief.


 * WP:RS says that reliable sources are secondary sources, rather than primary sources. In other words, a statement by K12 is a primary source, and some people would say it shouldn't be used at all (although I think they might provide additional useful information). WP:RS requires a statement in a reliable secondary source, like the NYT, Wall Street Journal, Chronicle of Higher Education, etc., making that point. (I don't know if the Washington Business Journal is a WP:RS but I would give them the benefit of the doubt.)


 * I have a strong bias towards studies in peer-reviewed journals, like Science. I think the ideal article would list the evidence published in peer-reviewed journals on the strengths and problems with K12, and WP:RS sources like the NYT to repeat the same information in a more accessible format. There are other ways of doing it that follow Wikipedia guidelines.


 * But Wikipedia can't have an article written by someone who works for the subject of the article. It doesn't seem to work. If this were an objective, balanced article based on peer-reviewed academic research, I might be tempted, but it's not. No man can be a judge in his own case.


 * There are pharmaceutical companies that write presentations at medical meetings reviewing their drug and their competitors. They claim that they can write an objective presentation. It never works. --Nbauman (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

NBauman, thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. I agree that it is impossible for someone within the company to be fully objective, which is why I disclosed my conflict of interest and am seeking input to get a draft that is objective. My goal is to make the article as factually accurate and complete as possible.

To that end, a few comments:


 * What do you think about the history and products sections? You did not comment on those. Could we make those changes, along with the updates to the revenue, employees, etc. information to the infobox, and then discuss the controversies section? Would you be willing to make those edits, or would it be appropriate for me to do so?
 * I did not realize that current controversies belong in the lead section. Thank you for pointing that out, and I have now read that policy and agree it should remain, but perhaps we will want to revise it a little to reflect any changes we would make to the controversies section. (And I do have a citation for the "citation needed" item that currently exists:


 * With regard to the controversies section, which I knew would be controversial: are there some specific changes we could make that would allow at least some of this to be added? You mentioned that the organizational changes were good; could we start there? I think there are some useful links to neutral sources, such as the socialization study and Secretary Duncan's comments which I provided. Could you look at some of the counterpoints made and see if any meet the verifiability standard, and if you would you be willing to make some edits to the draft that would improve the article? There is certainly more than one view on online education and as the article stands now those aren't reflected. I have also just found a U.S. Department of Education study that provides another view that I could incorporate into the edit. Do you agree that the item about the Wisconsin Superintendent of Schools race is outdated (most of the links are dead or changed) and could be removed?

I really appreciate your comments and hope we can continue to collaborate and improve the article. Agmacq (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You're getting paid to do this, so you can spend all day on it. I'm not, so I can't read it carefully and give it a detailed critique.


 * There's one central issue here: K12 (or at least its supporters) claims that that K12 can educate children cheaper, better or both than the public schools. Is that true?


 * In Wikipedia's epistomology, you have to answer that question with WP:RS. The best WP:RS are articles published in peer-reviewed journals, or their equivalent. The New York Times is a reliable source. Anything Diane Ravitch cites is a WP:RS. Ravitch's articles themselves is even better, because they're WP:RS secondary sources, and as such have undergone another layer of review. The NAEP is a reliable primary source.


 * The Western Michigan University study is a WP:RS, especially when it is reported in a secondary source, with fact-checking, such as the NYT.


 * White papers, press releases, and internal studies are not reliable sources, because they've never been subject to outside review. In the pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical companies used to do studies, throw out the unfavorable studies, keep the favorable studies, and pick and choose endpoints and subgroups that made them look good. (That apparently happened just now with Sipuleucel-T (Provenge)).


 * So studies must be subject to external review to be acceptable in Wikipedia. (And the Washington Business Journal, which just summarizes press releases, is not my idea of a WP:RS.)


 * In response to Western Michigan University's conclusions about annual yearly progress, you used a K12 statement. That's not a WP:RS. You link to a statement from Arne Duncan, which doesn't even address the WMU study, or K12 specifically, but instead argues against the validity of the AYP. In Wikipedia terms, that's WP:OR, because it doesn't address the K12 situation specifically.


 * It would take me about an hour to read that K12 statement critically, and even then, I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. I depend on the editors of peer-reviewed journals to evaluate studies like that for me, and I depend on people like Ravitch to evaluate it. And I depend on education reporters from the NYT and Wall Street Journal to evaluate it.


 * The problem with K12 is that public schools are judged by the AYP standard, and by that standard, K12 doesn't seem to be doing too well. I know there are problems with the AYP, but those are the rules that the Obama administration set, so it's fair to judge K12 by the same standard. If you want to start a page on AYP, I'd like to see that.


 * I read a review in Science which said that Head Start wasn't effective, compared to other pre-school programs that were. I was sorry to see that, but they had a rigorous evalation, and I ahve to go with the facts. If an independent publication like Science had a good, rigorous review of K12, that would be strong evidence, and worth putting into the article.


 * This page has to be written by editors who are prepared to accept the conclusion that K12 isn't working, if that's how the facts turn out. You obviously can't do that. -- Nbauman (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a more practical critique - the rule on Wikipedia is that the subject of any article cannot write about itself. Remove all citations which reference the k12 website or something self-published by k12, then remove all information in the article which does not have a citation. A lot of the proposed additions are cited to k12 talking about itself. An organization's story is what others say about it and not what it says about itself. Also, thanks a lot for giving this a good try.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Bluerasberry and Nbauman. thank you both so much for your comments. Between your replies, I am understanding a lot better what is and isn't acceptable here, especially with regard to material cited solely on K12's website.

Bluerasberry: thank you for your edits to my proposed draft so that it's easier to see the differences between the two versions--I wish I'd thought of that! I Would it be possible, as a start, to make the infobox changes I proposed? As you can see by comparing the drafts, all I did there was to update the numbers and add citations. Would that be OK? With regard to the company founders, there was some confusion about the company's history and founding, which I tried to clear up in both the infobox and in the History section below. I think that all of that pretty well cited and non-controversial, would it be possible to put those changes in as well?

With regard to the lead section: as noted in Nbauman's reply above, I understand now that recent controversies should remain, a Wikipedia policy I was not aware of. That was the only reason for my removal of that section (I added that information down in the controversies section and even added a stronger citation to the controversy; I did not try to remove it.)

However, I do believe that the lead section about the controversy is biased too strongly against online education in general when the research is not complete. To answer Nbauman's question about whether online education from K12 is cheaper and/or better, there has been some research that indicates that it may be, and that research has been written up in reliable sources. For example, astudy from the US Department of Education found that students who took all or part of their classes online did better than those who didn't. The study (http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf) is cited in several third-party articles:
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10495726


 * http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/09/computers.replace.teachers/


 * http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-09-27/news/bs-ed-online-education-20100927_1_virtual-education-online-education-traditional-instruction

Yes, this is one study, but this sentence in the lead, "Other studies of online schools have generally found lower performance." seems incomplete without acknowledging the possible other view. I propose we change the sentence to something like: "Though some studies of online schools have found lower performance, a U.S. Department of Education study found that online learning can be more effective, especially when included with traditional face-to-face learning." Then we could add any or all of the above citations to support that alternate view. Does that seem like a supportable position, and if so, could we include it?

With regard to the products section: is it not acceptable to use K12's website as a reference at all to describe the company's products? In reading WP:PRODUCT, description of the products is something that "should generally be included." I tried to give more up-to-date information about K12's products and provide outside links where possible. Could we consider whether the revised section could be included, or revised as necessary?

I would like to discuss the controversies section at a later time, but I think it's clear from this discussion that having me rewrite it will not fly. I do think it needs reorganization, but I am probably not the person to do that. I think I can, however, provide some links to third-party neutral articles (such as the above) that may support some of the points already made in the existing text.

Again, thank you both for your assistance. I am learning a lot about this process, and separately, Bluerasberry, your Wikipedian-in-Residence position sounds really fascinating. I appreciate your taking time to weigh in on this article. Agmacq (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Further discussion here: User talk:Bluerasberry Agmacq (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Products Section
Once again, I note my conflict of interest as an employee of K12.

As noted by Bluerasberry, the current products section is almost completely uncited, and separately, it is out of date. I have written a new draft and cited all the information to WP:RS and have removed those sections that cannot be cited, or which are cited only to the K12 website. I have left a few citations to the K12 website to give more information, but those citations are always accompanied by citations to outside sources as well.

I pasted the original version to my draft page first, if anyone wants to compare the versions to see what changed. Structurally, it is more or less the same, though I did collapse the K-8 and high school into a single section to cut down on repetitive text.

I'd appreciate any feedback on the draft before I update the section. Thanks! Agmacq (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Further discussion here: User talk:Bluerasberry Agmacq (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Controversies section
I have written a revised draft of the controversies section. I again disclose my conflict of interest as a K12 employee. I pasted the original version to my draft page first so you can compare the versions to see what changed. Structurally, it is the same, but there were many uncited assertions, both positive and negative, that I provided citations for. I believe it is better to provide citations even to possibly negative information as it allows the reader to judge for him or herself. All citations are to external websites; I did not add any links to K12's website, and in fact, removed one. I updated the Bennett controversy which was dated, and I did remove the Wisconsin Superintendent of Education race item because I believe it was WP:RECENTISM; the information is completely out of date and the candidates involved did not have any impact on the race. I'd appreciate any feedback on the draft! --Agmacq (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Length of controversies section
Half the article is the controversies section. The length could reflect WP:NPOV problems and/or WP:UNDUE. It seems a bit imbalanced. Thoughts? Could the section be culled to find most notable and relevant? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Lots of WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE issues
I placed a NPOV template under reception but really it's also about the lobbying effort and the controversy. Note that someone brought that problem up back in December of 2013

This article has a serious problem of WP:NPOV AND WP:UNDUE. There is a clear imbalance between products/curriculum and reception. The entire reception section is almost as long as the remaining part of the article.

The entire reception section seems to have been taken from one source – the NYT. While they can be considered a reliable source, we cannot have entire sections just from one source like that because they still have an agenda and they try to frame things the way to want; and in that article their motives are very clear.

This very source is also the only source used for the entire Lobbying efforts section – that NYT article has a very clear agenda. Note that the entire section is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. "$500,000 to state political candidates from 2004 to 2010" seriously? This is a company of 2.5k employees; 500,000/2,500/6 = $33.3. That's thirty-three bucks per year. I spend more on chocolate per month than they on politics per year. Surely that crap that deserve such undue coverage as to have its own section.

And then we got to the controversy section. This should not even belong in this article and it certainly should not have its own section (totally WP:UNDUE once again). The entire section talks about what the cofounder said; what's it got to do with K12 (the actual company)? That's unlikely to be the company's view; if it was it would have to be cited with multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). The termination of a $3M might warrant a single sentence if it's talked about in multiple RS. But it doesn't need all those quotes and it certainly doesn't need that section. (That would go under the cofounder's article if he had one). -- Cy be r XR ef ☎ 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems like it's worth revisiting. Bennett19000 (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If the text were structured sentence for, sentence against, there would be less WP:UNDUE than section for then section against. Rhadow (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's worth revisiting. Bennett19000 Here is my suggested approach: Recast the Reception section as a discussion of the debate over government-operated public schools versus the range of alternatives: private, parochial, independent home-schooling and programmatic home-schooling. Then focus on K12 and its peers.
 * Some parents avoid public schooling and a curriculum that includes evolution.
 * Some parents choose home-schooling because it avoids (undesirable) socialization.
 * Public-school teachers unions oppose any government support of charter schools, vouchers, and home schooling.
 * Free-market capitalists cite Milton Friedman's ideas about education improvement from competition.
 * Shareholders in K12 want to promote their investment.

Marketing and Growth Strategy
A section of expenditures for marketing that addresses dollars and geography would be nicely informative. --Wikipietime (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing in 2017
We see a new round of editing by WP:SPA editors who may or may not have a conflict of interest WP:COI.

K12 has a lot of powerful friends. That's fine. If they want to suggest edits on this page, fine. Otherwise the unpaid editors of wikipedia will do the best they can to create an encyclopedia article, not an addendum to the company's 10K. Rhadow (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ronz -- I reverted a couple of Bennett19000's edits. This last one, about Middlebury, was relevant. It was not advertising. It was about a relation formed, then failed. Rhadow (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in my edit summary, "some mention may be due". The external link in the section heading was WP:LINKSPAM. The reference in the section heading may be the best of the three, but it doesn't belong in the heading. The NYTimes reference is a warmed-over press release. The Inside Higher Ed reference was represented rather poorly. No reference was offered covering the final terms of the separation. --Ronz (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ronz, Bennett19000 -- Acquisitions of $10 and $20 million are irrelevant to a company doing a billion a year. It's fine content for a 10K, but not for an encyclopedia article. These are routine business announcements. Rhadow (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bennett19000 -- I reiterate my previous advice about additions of irrelevant detail to an encyclopedia article. This page is about the company, not a list of management. Nate Davis is not a notable person; neither is Stuart Udell. There are no assertions made about a substantial change they have made to the company. Likewise for the list of acquisitions, which are a normal course of business for a corporation of this size. I announce here my intent to substantially trim the article of detail which belongs more properly on the company's web site or in its 10-K. Rhadow (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Trim away. Any reference that is a press release or the like should be given no weight without other sourcing. Details on basic business aspects that are not clearly encyclopedic should likewise be given little or no weight. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bennett19000 -- This is not the company website. Please refrain from additions of small acquisitions and deletion of relevant, sourced material. Yes, we can change text to the past tense, but an encyclopedia article is not only a present-day description. As to Agora, it's the same situation as Middlebury, a relation formed and discontinued. Rhadow (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I edited the article with a citation for Agora. This is what you fellow editors expect. Rhadow (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"Agora terminated its contract with K12 in 2014."

Admin protection 2018
This article has been contentious for a while. Now it is protected, requiring an administrator's intervention. We would all be well advised to propose changes here and agree before requests are made of an administrator (Kudpung and John from Idegon are interested in education) before requests are made. Rhadow (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I copied this from elsewhere and tweaked it for us.

Editing in 2018
Edits in the School Assessment section need more references to get to NPOV - I'll write up a draft for review

Also, The information regarding previous business partners should be removed or placed in a separate section from the School Assessment section as historical, rather than the current state of the industry and K12. Bennett19000 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The question is this: What is ancient history and what is recent enough to be reflective on the company today. I suggest that things move relatively slowly in education. Rhadow (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Schools section?
I think that there should be a schools section listing the schools that they own, as some of them have pages. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  15:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)