Jump to content

Talk:Aspen Education Group

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

I want to call attention to my recent edits to the article. My name on Wikipedia is "Frog One" but my real name is Tom Croke. I was quoted in the article by someone else. The quotation was valid when posted but things have changed and it came to my attention that out of date information was being used to damage schools and programs that have been sold and have no connection with Aspen or its present owners, CRC and Bain Capital. Others are welcome to jump in on this and edit my edit. On one hand I was uncomfortable editing a reference to me. On the other hand the out of date information should not be used to damage the innocent. Frog one (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DISPUTE NPOV

[edit]

I have been dismayed by the edit of this article that turned it into an advertisement for Aspen. This creates the appearance that the article has been revised to its present status by someone on Aspen's payroll. The excuse stated in discussion at the time that happened was that previous comments inserted under controversy were not "encyclopedic." However the sales brochure we have now is not encyclopedic. The statement under the controversy statement implying that the objections to Aspen are essentially the same as at other programs in this field is blatantly misleanding. I agree that the person using the word "detainees" is also far from NPOV on the other side.

The present article misstates that Jim Dredge is president. Actually Jim "resigned" (Aspen's code word for fired with severance pay) effective October 2009 after he tried to clean up some of the problems and sought a squeaky clean ethical platform. Apparently the managers at CRC Health Group and Bain Capital did not see things that way.

I'm not planning to make changes in the article itself, and get into an editing war with the Aspen minion who put this in place. But the criticisms of marketing practices, closing of New Leaf North Carolina abandoning kids in midstream, program license actions for cause by the state of Oregon (resulting in closing of two programs), etc. clearly raise issues about Aspen programs that someone is trying to hide.

I hope the Wikipedia brass will take a look at the editor who placed this article in its present form. It is transparently an Aspen inside job.

Although my four tilde signature won't show it, I am an educational consultant, Tom Croke. You can find me at www.familylight.com. Keeping track of this stuff is my career. Rmagick is correct in objecting to NPOV issues where people use words like "detainees" but the bias on the other side is just as blatant.

Frog one (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is also Tom Croke aka Frog One (www.familylight.com) a year later. Covergaard's link for a "database" goes to a "fornits" page which contains some accurate information but also many distorted accounts. The suggestion in the text below that "detainees" is a appropriate terminology because students are not held against their will is actually misinformation. Actually, in most states schools, public and private schools act "in loco parentis" and parents with custody have absolute legal right to determine where their students go to school and no one fails to call students "students" for that reason. While there is still state to state deviation on the right of parents to place children against their will in programs such as those run by Aspen, restrictions on the right of parents to do so are more common in that kind of venue.
Since my September 2010 post, Bain Capital has closed a number of additional Aspen facilities. While they did a better job this time with attempting to place kids in other facilities, the fact is again they broke their commitment to many families and disrupted the progress of may children so Bain Capital could improve its bottom line.
Both Bain Capital and posters like Covergaard are attempting to use this page to place distorted propaganda to enhance a personal agenda. This is not what Wikipedia is about.
Frog one (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I will not participate in a revert war either. I created the original article before their marketing department took over. Wikipedia has a problem when it comes to such huge firms which can bury bad news on the internet. Together with a number of human right organizations we have created a large database (and copies) where you can find a more accurate version of this page Covergaard (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section doesn't identify any controversies (two sides of an argument). It is primarily criticism and may warrant deletion on wp:NPOV grounds. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 05:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why not change the heading to Criticisms or add in the other side, instead of deleting material?Koothrappali (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I toned it down and integrated it into the article. However some of the material is opinion from a blog. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 09:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My change was reverted without explanation. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to the "clever" folks who edit without logging in:

When i see IP addresses from denmark, that resolve to a host that happens to host a well known anti-therapeutic school wiki, you are fooling no-one. Ditto when I see IP addresses from the Phillipines, where a certain Aspen program is located. Snertking (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this entire article calls out to be rewritten, with all poorly or incorrectly sourced material removed. it also seems to be primarily an attack article.

if anyone has actual sourced critique not from original research industry marketing and survivor testimony, this would make it a better article. thanks, happy editing! SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lawsuits and such

[edit]

what we need under the criticism section is a list of the lawsuits and complaints against aspen schools that have been covered in mainstream periodicals.

I have found a few, which i have enumerated in the talk page for NATSAP. Time permitting i will be adding them in here. They are listed at this link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Association_of_Therapeutic_Schools_and_Programs

Snertking (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"What we need" is more focus on writing a neutral, objective article based on third-party reliable sources. Battles between the company PR people trying to convert this article into a glossary promotional brochure and the people who want to create exposés leave articles like this looking more like battlefields than like encyclopedia articles. --Orlady (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind you of wp:agf in regards to your activist comment, as well as the PR comment. Lawsuits against Apsen programs are on topic and relevant. They have been covered in mainstream periodicals and are therefore relevant an on topic. I can hardly see how NPOV issues could be claimed. ASPEN is controversial, and the article needs to reflect that more. Snertking (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo Orlady! Thank you for the clear-headed response. Objectivity is our goal. However I do have one criticism of your edits. The focus on investors, profits and revenue does not seem to belong in the History section of the article. They are comments on the industry not the history of Aspen. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 02:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an article about a company, so information about the value of the company over time, its profits, and its investors is definitely germane. I you are referring to the statements from the 2005 New York Times article about the reasons for investor interest in the industry, it is true that the statements were not exclusively about Aspen, but they also were not about the industry in general -- they were about Aspen and companies like Aspen. Notably, Nader J. Naini, described in the Times as "a general partner with Frazier Healthcare" (at that time one of the main investors in Aspen) "and also the chairman of Aspen's board" was a major source about the attractiveness of this kind of company for investors and the prospects for continuing growth in Aspen. The only statement in the Times piece that is reflected in this article and is not clearly at least partially specific to Aspen is the stand-alone paragraph that says "Industry analysts estimate that the companies typically generate profit margins of 10 to 20 percent." Considering the small number of companies they could have been referring to, I still see that information as very germane to an article about this company. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my previous comment. It does not imply that your edits are not "germane". I have merely stated that financial information on this and other companies might not be considered as "History" of the subject. Can't we agree that some of it belongs at another place within the Aspen article? I am refering to the last two sentences of the first paragraph which editorialize on the motivations of the investors. My view of a History section is for it to contain a timeline of events surrounding the subject. We are on the same side here, aren't we, the side of objectivity? BTW, if you think I am one of those company PR persons that are trying to convert the article let me assure you that I have no interest, vested or otherwise, in promoting Aspen. I am however sensitive to the the battlefield mentality that is demonstrated in some contributors edits to this and similar wikis. I do try to set the record straight whenever possible, recognizing that I am not perfect and do make mistakes. So wah-da-ya-say we share notes and collaborate? -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 17:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, Financial information is relevant, but it ain't history. Belongs here, but not under history. As much as some people may want it near top for the obvious reasons. Snertking (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the "as much as some people may want it" comment is not directed at Orlady, but rather at folks discussing this page elsewhere, who have stated it needs to be near top as it is seen first. Snertking (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New section

[edit]

Barring any objection here, I'd like to add some of the stats and claims made in the recent salon article at: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/18/dark_side_of_a_bain_success/singleton/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.62.19 (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a good resource. However, I didn't see much in it that could be added to this particular article. Some of the content about specific programs -- including well-sourced anecdotes -- looks like it might be appropriate for articles about those specific programs. However, unlike the Salon piece, an encyclopedia can't use specific anecdotes as a basis for making broad generalizations about Aspen (or Bain Capital). I created a short article about New Life Lodge (a non-Aspen facility operated by CRC Health) based on sources that the Salon article pointed me to. Some of the Aspen facilities that don't currently have articles might oughta get similar treatment. What stats and claims would you like to add to this article? --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like there should at least be some mention of the allegations of abuse and neglect. From the article: "Our investigation found previously unreported allegations of abuse and neglect in at least 10 CRC residential drug and teen care facilities across the country, including three I visited undercover in Utah and California." This isn't a problem with just a single facility, and if we don't include this information, then we are not presenting a complete picture. Qassandra (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That statement from the Salon article is about CRC Health Group; it's not specific to Aspen. Thus, it can't be quoted as information about Aspen. Last I looked, we didn't have an article about CRC Health. The Salon article could would be a good source for starting a Wikipedia article about CRC Health, and the broad assertion regarding CRC that you quote could be used in an article about CRC Health, but because the statement is not specific to Aspen, it really doesn't belong here.
The Salon article describes specific issues with a few Aspen facilities, but it doesn't provide a basis for saying that the problems observed exist across the corporation. Some of the topics in the Salon article were already covered in this Wikipedia article.
As noted above, after reading the Salon article, I started a new Wikipedia article about one of the CRC facilities discussed in the Salon article. There may be enough content to do the same with some Aspen facilities that don't currently have articles. --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I was a student at the Cedars Academy from 1996-2001. I still communicate with several faculty and students who went. I have actual newspaper articles and lawsuits and abuse about the school and the founders Neal Swartz and Mary Margaret Pauer. I'd like to create a page for the school to create a searchable record that consolidates this information. Can we create a page for the school?JES1981 (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, CRC was bought by Acadia Healthcare in 2014: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/crc-health-group-to-be-acquired-by-acadia-healthcare-280852262.htmlJES1981 (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status report, November 2012

[edit]

I have reread the article as it is now written and has been edited since I last looked. My impression is that the article is now fairly balanced. The history appears to be accurate (although it now includes some things I did not previously know). I think more about Eliot Sainer's role in develpment of this company and early association with College Hospital could be included, but that is not about balance and fairness. I like the paragraph on controversy as it is now written. I don't want to tamper with the part that uses my name (Tom Croke) but I am not asking for Kudos here -- although as of this reading I am quoted accurately. Frog one (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Client deaths

[edit]

Excuse me, i don't really understand how this all works. Sorry. But I have to say something. Aspen has had at least five known "client" deaths since Bain acquired the company. There's plenty of articles about it. http://www.salon.com/2012/07/18/dark_side_of_a_bain_success/singleton/

Again, my apologies if i posted where i shouldn't. my name is Brett Schnaper,(brett@l/m/i/.\n\e\t). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.247.31 (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. You posted in the right place.
The Salon piece has come up here previously. It isn't as good a source as first meets the eye. It relies heavily on blogs and other sources that are not considered to be reliable for wikipedia, and many of the statements are allegations that are difficult to cover in an encyclopedia article. Also, the Salon focus is more on CRC Health than on Aspen; general statements that describe CRC don't necessarily apply to Aspen. There is some information in the article about a couple of specific Aspen programs, but not much that can be used in this article. Also, some of the content was already in the article -- or in articles about the specific programs. If you can find more tidbits that could be used, please point them out!
PS - I did create an article about New Life Lodge after reading the Salon piece. There might be enough content to create articles about some other facilities that don't have articles now. --Orlady (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place here, but I was wondering if any of you noticed the links in this page are mostly dead? I've no clue how wikipedia works as of now, but can someone clean this up a little?99.230.28.141 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Active schools december 2014

[edit]

I have to say that thanks to the work of DPoC Aspen group is almost no more. Here are some updates:

  • Adirondack Leadership Expeditions (was closed)
  • Aspen Institute for Behavioral Assessment (was sold and not continued under new owner)
  • Oakley School (Sold to Innerchange)
  • SUWS Adolescent Programs (All SUWS programs are now in North Carolina only)
  • Turn-About Ranch (Sold to the local management)

Look at their website. Covergaard (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Aspen Education Group. 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Aspen Education Group. 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aspen Education Group. 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aspen Education Group. 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:

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) 23:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Aspen Education Group. 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:

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) 11:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aspen Education Group. 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:

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) 17:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better article

[edit]

Looking for help to trim and edit this article free of unsourced, poorly sourced, and deceptively sourced material. Please discuss additions after checking the source with strict wiki policy Thanks kids, and hapoy editing! SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with sourcing

[edit]

A recent edit reverted all changes that have been made to this article between January 2022 and March 2023. I'm concerned that many of those changes were necessary, so I'd like to go through it and look at the issues with article with fresh eyes. Two things stand out - a very heavy reliance on court documents, often in regard to complaints by and about living people. This goes against WP:BLPPRIMARY. The second is a heavy reliance on questionable and self published sources. There's a lot to do, but to explain my edits to date:

  • [1] So this is clearly about a named individual, but relies on a court document titled "J.M. v. CRC Health, Inc.". I have searched Lexis, which is whas this document is sourced to, but I cannot find the case. I've removed the source and claims solely sourced to it on two grounds. The first is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which states that we cannot use court documents when writing about living people. The second is that because I cannot verify the document, I have red flags being raised because the same source is used on a completely different case in this article, and is dated 2012 - two years after this case had been through the courts and finalised. Therefore I cannot be confident that it was related to this case, even if it could be used under BLP.
  • [2] This claim was entirely dependent on the New York Post as a source, and that is considered unreliable. On WP:RSP the New York Post is listed as a "red" source, and is considered by editors to be "generally unreliable for factual reporting". As the paragraph was entirely dependent on that source, I had to remove the paragraph as a whole.

I'll make sure to explain any other significant changes here as I go, and, as always, I welcome discussion. - Bilby (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search gave alternative source to the new york post which was time that meets WP:RSPSS 1keyhole (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Time article you've used is simply quoting the New York Post: "The mother of a former student at Copper Canyon recently told the New York Post ...". So ultimately, this is still the New York Post's account. You've also used Troubledprograms.com, which is once again quoting the New York Post and appears to be self published. If the content untimately relies on the New York Post, we can't use the content. Sorry. - Bilby (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aspen_Education_Group&oldid=1205417710"