Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Hyde Schools
NOTICE TO POTENTIAL PARENTS
Anonymous:
I think at least some of your questions are relevant and valid.
My concern is the hyperbole that gets regurgitated here.
The first is the continued insinuation that the only people that support Hyde are the Gaulds and members of the "administration" (and a small number of people who drank the cool-aid). You didn't, but the person who responded to my post said:
--- Quote ---I am very happy there is someone on this board who obviously is a part of Hyde. I hope you are willing to clear up what you say are misconceptions."
--- End quote ---
You will notice quotes to this effect through-out, all not-so-subtle-digs that there aren't any legitimate supporters of Hyde (the more overt digs being that we are all cultists who drank the cool-aide).
FOR ME, My experience is there is a large number of supporters and I interact with at least some of them independently and many more at reunions.
Anyway, back to the specific post to which I respond -- in this most recent case, there was the insinuation that something was done inappropriately, but no details were provided.
Personally, I like the quote someone wrote above.....
--- Quote ---I too think everyone needs to be careful about how they criticize Hyde. I think it's very fair to make comments about Hyde's model and misguided approach to education. On this website there are many fair and thoughtful criticisms about Hyde's cult qualities, unskilled staff (some, not all), terribly negligent handling of students' mental health issues, abusive and destructive seminar format, Joe Gauld's arrogance and hypocrisy, unusually high admission and high attrition rates, and so on.
But, I don't think anyone should be making allegations about the Gaulds' income, the school's fiscal balance, or any other matters about which we don't know the facts. This is unfair and hits below the belt. I would encourage everyone to limit their criticisms to their own personal experiences and observations. Personal opinion is fine so long as it can be backed up with actual experiences and facts. Anything else is pure and unfair speculation and conjecture.
--- End quote ---
With regard to your questions, I think its fair to ask them. Without the facts, I don't think its fair to answer them or jump to conclusions about the answers to them.
We don't know attrition rates, run-away rates, how many have mental problems and the like.
We do have people on this site who cite "many, many" and the like, but that, my friends, is conjecture. We simply don't know the numbers and your personal experience, while relevant, is not determinative.
FWIW, I do agree that if certain disclosures aren't made, that they should (for instance, that parents will be pushed to disclose personal information that they may feel is embarassing, but the disclosure of which could also be quite healing and instrumental in exposing the disfunction of the family system that they present), etc.
Similarly, the academic backgrounds of every teacher should be posted on Hyde's website.
Anyway, point is I don't disagree with you on many of your questions and suggestions about disclosures, but that's completely different than the issues to which I responded about the alleged choking and the Paul Hurd incident.
Anonymous:
--- Quote ---On 2005-11-24 06:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
--- Quote ---
On 2005-11-21 08:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
--- Quote ---
On 2005-11-21 01:37:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
--- Quote ---
On 2005-11-20 22:04:00, Anonymous wrote:
"You left out the time when one of the Gauld family, (through marriage) attacked a student. I would not doubt if the student provoked it, but I would hope someone in this man's position would be able to keep his cool. He apologized to the school afterwards, but what does this tell you about the quality of the administrators? "
--- End quote ---
Since you're a tad short on the facts, not much."
--- End quote ---
So if I am "tad" short on the facts, why don't you clear it up. What justifies an administrator pushing a kid against a wall and choking them?
As far as Paul Hurd not giving Malcolm credit, if he didn't do anything wrong then why did the school send out letters to everyone explaining that he was leaving because of the incident?
I am very happy there is someone on this board who obviously is a part of Hyde. I hope you are willing to clear up what you say are misconceptions."
--- End quote ---
1. Your statement about not knowing if the student provoked it suggests you don't know the details. Without those, your post is meaningless. In your follow on post you add new facts about choking the student. Again, we don't know what led up to it, but if a student is a danger to himself or others, that would certainly justify physical restraint in my book. Beyond that, I would need the details of the incident to evaluate it. Hence my comment that your post is basically meaningless.
2. The Paul Hurd incident was confusing to me. Malcolm's letter said conflicting things. Yes, I gave this stuff to Paul to use as he saw fit. No, he should not have used them and it was plagarism and is being removed (or stepping down). I presume since this was Mal's brother in law, he was just throwing him a bone, but didn't read it all closely enough to think about it more.
As I've written before, the Paul Hurd incident to me is not evidence of Hyde being bad. There is no school in the country not rocked by sexual assault, rape an other outrageous behavior by supervisorial adults. And like the catholic church, many remove the teacher without legal action to avoid scandal. Hyde did not have to deal with this situation so openly....but instead said, hey, we believe in honesty and openness, so we are going to let you in on an embarassing thing that hurts us all, but to be consistent, this is how we must handle it.
They aired their dirty laundry publicly and openly and handled the situation responsibly.
That, to me, is evidence of their integrity.
That, to me, is evidence of Hyde's leadership.
You can spin it how you want, but what didn't happen was Hyde trying to keep it quiet and sweep it under the rug. Instead it sent a letter to the entire alumni community....not just current family and students. Personally, I don't know if I would have ever found out about it, but for their aggressive exemplary behavior. I tipped my hat to Hyde for this one."
--- End quote ---
Like a few other people who are posting here, I agree that Hyde does some things well. I can't argue with Hyde's efforts to get students to examine their character and attitudes. I don't think it's fair to point out all that is wrong with Hyde (and I think there's a tremendous amount wrong with Hyde) without acknowledging what Hyde does that may have some merit.
But, the unquestionable reality is that what's wrapped around whatever Hyde does well is fundamentally flawed and toxic. There is so much wrong with Hyde (pointed out hundreds of times elsewhere on this website) that what's toxic completely overshadows whatever redeeming features Hyde has.
Here's the best analogy I can think of: Imagine going to a restaurant that serves a very fine, tasty dish. It's perfectly appropriate to acknowledge this impressive, appealing dish. Then you find out that the restaurant's kitchen violates a number of critically important health department regulations and standards. Departmental inspectors have documented that the kitchen is overwhelmed with rodents, staff who prepare food don't wash their hands regularly, a number of ingredients in the refrigerator are spoiled and far beyond their "use" dates, and silverware isn't cleaned properly (low water temp).
If that were the case, would you take your family to eat at that restaurant? Would the restaurant's one impressive dish outweigh all that is wrong with the restaurant? I suspect that any thoughtful person who cared about his or her own health and his or her family's health would get out of that restaurant fast and look for an alternative.
And that's the situation with Hyde. This is what every parent who considers Hyde and what every educational consultant needs to know.
Lars:
Here's the best analogy I can think of: Imagine going to a restaurant that serves a very fine, tasty dish. It's perfectly appropriate to acknowledge this impressive, appealing dish. Then you find out that the restaurant's kitchen violates a number of critically important health department regulations and standards. Departmental inspectors have documented that the kitchen is overwhelmed with rodents, staff who prepare food don't wash their hands regularly, a number of ingredients in the refrigerator are spoiled and far beyond their "use" dates, and silverware isn't cleaned properly (low water temp).
You forgot to add: And many people have gotten violently ill from eating there.
Anonymous:
I can posit "some" people got ill from it.
I can also posit for "some" people this fish saved them from starvation and whatever other ills associated with it, the cure was worth the pain.
Metaphors aside, I seriously wish there was an easy metric for this sort of thing, because while the attrition and run-away rate is relevant on some level, its never the less an unknown and not necessarily correllated.
People leave Hyde for a wide variety of reasons and the number of posts on a website by anonymous posters does not make the case any more compelling.
There are definitely "some" who seem to have been abused at Hyde. There definitely seem to be "some" who had great experiences at Hyde. Both sides want to claim substantial numbers, but neither side has the ability to back them up.
Should Hyde disclose attrition (including run-aways)? Absolutely! I'll sign up for that request, as for me that's basic consumer information.
But without that data, while there may be many with valid tales to share on this site, any discussion of the numbers being on one side or the other seems fundamentally suspect.
Antigen:
--- Quote ---On 2005-11-24 15:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
There are definitely "some" who seem to have been abused at Hyde. There definitely seem to be "some" who had great experiences at Hyde.
--- End quote ---
Do you think those who had a good time might have developed an unhealthy insensitivity to those who were abused? And do you not think that's a kind of damage?
You can lead a camel to water but you can't make it stink (any more than it already does)
-- Job
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version