why these kids are so fucked up

[Anonymous]

ok, so I've been pondering this issue for a while...I want to know if America has a problem with their children and if anyone thinks this has far more to do with American 'culture' (or lack their of) in general, consumerism, etc. and attempts at containment.  What I mean by containment is that kids are growing up quickly, being marketed to and being pushed to 'be number 1' so to speak in our increasingly- I would say, almost nothing but- competetive world where you have to fight to survive and reach the centers of power...does that make sense??

[Anonymous]

That's why I support the notion that they need to be employed as soon as they demonstrate that they want to be treated as an adult- aka rebellion.
Why do parents shield their kids from THAT harsh reality, then lock them up in a psuedo reality warehouse to keep them out of trouble and their grades up so they can get into a 'good' college?

[Anonymous]

I don't think so -- at least in my experience -- teenagers tend to fuck around whatever part of the world they are from. It's not about society as much as age, you are transitioning from being a child to an adult. Some choose to learn things the hard way, others choose another path. I think the problem is that people see something as abnormal, or wrong. It's not, it's normal. Sure, it's scary as hell while you are going through it, but it serves a purpose. It makes you a stronger adult.

I do support parents teaching their children responsibility, and definitely not spoiling them or giving them a free ride. This does nothing to prepare you for real life.

Sending a kid to these programs is one of the worst lessons of responsibility I can imagine. The parents completely shift the blame to the teen, and then send them to LGA seminars to grind it into their head.


Good parents don't need programs!

[Anonymous]

On 2005-10-17 13:00:00, Anonymous wrote:

"I don't think so -- at least in my experience -- teenagers tend to fuck around whatever part of the world they are from. It's not about society as much as age, you are transitioning from being a child to an adult. Some choose to learn things the hard way, others choose another path. I think the problem is that people see something as abnormal, or wrong. It's not, it's normal. Sure, it's scary as hell while you are going through it, but it serves a purpose. It makes you a stronger adult.



I do support parents teaching their children responsibility, and definitely not spoiling them or giving them a free ride. This does nothing to prepare you for real life.



Sending a kid to these programs is one of the worst lessons of responsibility I can imagine. The parents completely shift the blame to the teen, and then send them to LGA seminars to grind it into their head.





Good parents don't need programs!"

I agree that it's more about age, but mistakes cost more than they used to. Kids in the 70's could usually get away with having a bad trip, but kids now are dealing with meth--a drug you can get addicted to the first time you use it. Kids in the 70's had problems with things like gonorrhea; now it's AIDS. Nice idea to let them simply learn through natural consequences, trial and error, but too many won't make it past that first lesson.

I don't mean any disrespect, but do you really know what programs teach about responsibility (and which programs teach what lessons)? And what does blame have to do with it? The whole idea is to stop worrying about blaming people or looking the way your parents expect, and be responsible for your own decisions. If that's the worst you could imagine, stretch a little.

For some kids, the worst is when they start acting out and everyone excuses it, not realizing the kid wants to be in control, but doesn't know how. Or not recognizing the kid is desperate for some help and attention. Kids pick up on that patronizing attitude that kids will be kids. They deserve to be taken more seriously.

If you expect kids to act helpless, they will. If you expect them to take the initiative and change their lives, they'll do that most times, too. Even very fine parents have found themselves at a loss with kids this age. Is it really an awful thing to look to others for help? And what are "good" parents? Most of us are good and bad, stumbling along doing our best to love the kids where they're at, allow them their autonomy, but know when to catch them when they fall.

"Be kind. Everyone you meet is engaged in a great battle."

 ::heart::

[Anonymous]

Well, "hello" Since when does "looking to others for help" mean sending your kid to a wilderness program to have them "BROKEN DOWN" before enrolling the kid in a long-term-treatment program to "BUILD THEM UP" until they start behaving "EXACTLY LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO?"

[Antigen]

Well now, if you really want to get into it, there's a whole raft of good writing on the topic of kids ta' day. Mike Males has a lot to say about it. So does Grace Llewellyn.

While I do agree that kids are under a LOT more pressure in some ways than in days past. And I think Mike Males is onto something w/ his theory about culture shock. It scares the SHIT out of us WASPs when our kids bring home Latin lingo and Ghetto styles. We just have no sense of humor about that sort of thing.

But, on the other hand, kids are not allowed to do or even THINK about anything important anymore. They get totally meaningless trophies and awards for nothing (every kid gets one so no one gets their feelings hurt). They're not allowed to work, unless they're in show biz or you live in an area where they haven't yet outlawed paper routes for kids. Did you know that under provisions of the PATRIOT[sic] Act, kids are no longer allowed to have any sort of bank account? I mean we used to have to co-sign. But now, they can only have a custodial account, unless the account was established prior to implimentation of those banking measures.

So we have teenagers (actually, full grown adults saddled w/ artificial legal dissabilities and social attitudes to match) who have never had any practice at making decisions or taking chances that matter. And then we wonder why they're so damned poor at assessing the relative risks of, say, meth vs. pot or consumation of a meaningful romance w/ a well known and trusted love interest vs. giving head like it was shaking hands.

And your solution to the problem is to futher restrict them? To lock them down, remove ALL choices and bully them into adopting (or pretending to adopt) your beliefs and standards?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Nothing wrong with seeking help if you need it. But going blindly about it, trusting total strangers to employ radical methods on your very own children?

Sorry, hon. That's a mistake. And you're old enough to know better.

Theology: The effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.
--H. L. Mencken, American publisher

[Anonymous]

On 2005-10-17 14:14:00, Antigen wrote:

"Well now, if you really want to get into it, there's a whole raft of good writing on the topic of kids ta' day. Mike Males has a lot to say about it. So does Grace Llewellyn.



While I do agree that kids are under a LOT more pressure in some ways than in days past. And I think Mike Males is onto something w/ his theory about culture shock. It scares the SHIT out of us WASPs when our kids bring home Latin lingo and Ghetto styles. We just have no sense of humor about that sort of thing.



But, on the other hand, kids are not allowed to do or even THINK about anything important anymore. They get totally meaningless trophies and awards for nothing (every kid gets one so no one gets their feelings hurt). They're not allowed to work, unless they're in show biz or you live in an area where they haven't yet outlawed paper routes for kids. Did you know that under provisions of the PATRIOT[sic] Act, kids are no longer allowed to have any sort of bank account? I mean we used to have to co-sign. But now, they can only have a custodial account, unless the account was established prior to implimentation of those banking measures.



So we have teenagers (actually, full grown adults saddled w/ artificial legal dissabilities and social attitudes to match) who have never had any practice at making decisions or taking chances that matter. And then we wonder why they're so damned poor at assessing the relative risks of, say, meth vs. pot or consumation of a meaningful romance w/ a well known and trusted love interest vs. giving head like it was shaking hands.



And your solution to the problem is to futher restrict them? To lock them down, remove ALL choices and bully them into adopting (or pretending to adopt) your beliefs and standards?



That doesn't make any sense at all. Nothing wrong with seeking help if you need it. But going blindly about it, trusting total strangers to employ radical methods on your very own children?



Sorry, hon. That's a mistake. And you're old enough to know better.

Theology: The effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.
--H. L. Mencken, American publisher

"

I agree with you that we as a society don't allow kids to make enough of their own choices, but your logic fails when you make some assumptions that aren't true:

"And your solution to the problem is to futher restrict them? To lock them down, remove ALL choices and bully them into adopting (or pretending to adopt) your beliefs and standards?"

The program doesn't restrict them. It makes them earn all those things they thought were god-given, i.e. television, candy, etc. It's not a lockdown, and there's not even a fence. And one of the first things parents learn to accept is that the kids will choose their own beliefs and standards, and our job is to support them in that. In other words, what our kids do might not look the way we want, and that's OK. The idea is to agree on a few basics: no drugs, no arrests, take care of the things you have, finish school. To me, that kind of acceptance and compromise looks a lot like what you're suggesting.

"Nothing wrong with seeking help if you need it. But going blindly about it, trusting total strangers to employ radical methods on your very own children?"

Blindly? That's a wild assumption. There's a ton of information out there, and parents not only tour the school, but talk to other parents--supportive and otherwise--and have a chance to talk to any students we want to, without staff listening. And radical? More like common sense. If my daughter has decided all I do for her is worthless, show her its worth. If she thinks everything she does is meaningless, show her the consequences of her actions. If she thinks she's utterly helpless and we're contolling her, step back and hand the reins to her, so she can make it work for herself, the way she thinks it should look.

Most important is the level of family involvement (Why do so many people on this site get this wrong?!) At many programs, parents are required to participate in every decision, and so are the kids. There are parents at the program every day, working with teachers, therapists, etc. The family is changing, not just the kid. Strangers? No, not by a long way.

The missing piece in your position seems to be a means of distinguishing between good and bad programs, or even acknowledging that such a need exists. It simply is not true that all programs look alike, from their security provisons to their behavior plans.

[Anonymous]

Well, ANON why don't you just provide a list of these "good, wholesome, schools that allow all this parental involvement?"  Please help me out here.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-10-18 07:48:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Well, ANON why don't you just provide a list of these "good, wholesome, schools that allow all this parental involvement?"  Please help me out here."

Friend,

Provide us with a list of those that don't.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-10-18 09:53:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2005-10-18 07:48:00, Anonymous wrote:


"Well, ANON why don't you just provide a list of these "good, wholesome, schools that allow all this parental involvement?"  Please help me out here."

Friend,



Provide us with a list of those that don't."

LOL, you program apologists are so damn ignorant it's hilarious.  

Pssst ... nobody is buying what you are selling.

Perhaps the ST program dependent parents are interested?  I hear tell that forum is polluted with teen helper wannabees and TOUGHLOVE addicts.  :rofl:

Here's the link:

http://www.strugglingteens.com

:wave:

[TheWho]

On 2005-10-18 07:48:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Well, ANON why don't you just provide a list of these "good, wholesome, schools that allow all this parental involvement?"  Please help me out here."

Just starting reading these posts:  "Swift River" is a program which involves the entire family and takes the position that each family member needs to be involved.  No fences no locks no abuse, food is good, well pretty good.
Even without knowing Swift river I feel it would be short sighted to think all schools are abusive and harm kids.

[Anonymous]

Just asking for a list of the GOOD ones that don't abuse and harm kids. LIST THEM!

[TheWho]

On 2005-10-18 10:15:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Just asking for a list of the GOOD ones that don't abuse and harm kids. LIST THEM!"

"Academy at Swift River" for one.

[Anonymous]

The web page for Swift River states the following, these are THEIR WORDS, not mine.

Lots of "love, home-away-from-home, emotional growth potential."

Life: dictated by TREMENDOUS stucture, including weekends.

Requires a 15 month placement, and required Parent Seminars.

Academic: not verification if any of the "teachers" are certified.
Swift River is a "CANDIDATE" for accreditation.

Peer reinforcement--students are assigned important roles of leadership and holding students accountable, even inside the classrooms.

Lists off campus activities: but makes reference "to those who must remain on campus."

Discusses the transition home, referring to students returning to an "often LONELY, HOSTILE WORLD."

There are a lot of "red flags."

I certainly do not want my child attending a "SCHOOL" that is NOT accredited, and that may not have certified teachers.  I do not approve of KIDS SUPERVISING KIDS, and holding other kids accountable for their behaviors. I would not want to participate in any required Parents Seminars. AND my child would be returning to a loving family, NOT some lonely, hostile world.

HOW ABOUT THAT LIST?

[TheWho]

On 2005-10-18 10:56:00, Anonymous wrote:

"The web page for Swift River states the following, these are THEIR WORDS, not mine.



Lots of "love, home-away-from-home, emotional growth potential."



Life: dictated by TREMENDOUS stucture, including weekends.



Requires a 15 month placement, and required Parent Seminars.



Academic: not verification if any of the "teachers" are certified.

Swift River is a "CANDIDATE" for accreditation.



Peer reinforcement--students are assigned important roles of leadership and holding students accountable, even inside the classrooms.



Lists off campus activities: but makes reference "to those who must remain on campus."



Discusses the transition home, referring to students returning to an "often LONELY, HOSTILE WORLD."



There are a lot of "red flags."



I certainly do not want my child attending a "SCHOOL" that is NOT accredited, and that may not have certified teachers.  I do not approve of KIDS SUPERVISING KIDS, and holding other kids accountable for their behaviors. I would not want to participate in any required Parents Seminars. AND my child would be returning to a loving family, NOT some lonely, hostile world.



HOW ABOUT THAT LIST?"

Oh I see, your one of those people that judges a school based on their web page.  

***Lots of "love, home-away-from-home, emotional growth potential."***

Seems okay

***Life: dictated by TREMENDOUS stucture, including weekends.***

Nothing wrong yet

***Requires a 15 month placement, and required Parent Seminars.***

Okay, parental involvement (like I mentioned)

***Academic: not verification if any of the "teachers" are certified.***

Okay doesnt say they are not (in 2003, math, science, english were certified, I was there)

***Swift River is a "CANDIDATE" for accreditation.***

Okay, so whats the point?  They could have said nothing.  It goes like this, not accredited, candidate, accredited, in that order.  Every school in America has to go thru these steps.  The school in the town next to me just lost their accreditation because the square footage of the building didnt keep up with the growth of the town.  Doesnt mean the teachers are bad or they abuse the kids!!!

***Peer reinforcement--students are assigned important roles of leadership and holding students accountable, even inside the classrooms.***

Nothing wrong with building leadership skills.  Not like they are passing laws or handling the money.

***Lists off campus activities: but makes reference "to those who must remain on campus."***

Yes, like in life, all good things come to those who earn them and of course each peer group are at different stages so not everyone travels off campus at the same time.

***Discusses the transition home, referring to students returning to an "often LONELY, HOSTILE WORLD."***

Yes,Yes -- If the parents dont work hard and change their bad habits too sometimes.  The child needs to be prepared to reimmerge into the enviourment from which he or she came.  Like I said it is a family program, not just one kid.

***I would not want to participate in any required Parents Seminars. AND my child would be returning to a loving family, NOT some lonely, hostile world.***

So you expect the school to do all the work!!!  Thats what is wrong with most families today, expecting the school system and day care to raise your kids for you.  Sometimes the kids need to be removed from the family because the family is screwed up NOT THE KID, and the entire family needs to participate in order to effect any change.  

You know you really didnt read the ASR web site, that was too easy, its not a bad school, but I do agree that there are bad ones out there.

I can only name the schools I know first hand anything else would be hearsay.