THERAPEUTIC BOARDING SCHOOLS DESICION

[shopgirl2005]

Julie:

You can't imagine how much I appreciate your answer.  You sounded honest and in the back of my head I had the same ideas but it they were blurry because most of this school advertise themselves as being the best thing and they are not.

I had my concerns, especially because I've research some news clips and the feedback I've gotten from them is not the best.

In fact I hired a educational consultant and even though I trust her I'm not sure she knows how the kids turn out once they go through the process of a therapeutic boarding school.

If possible, I will give you my personal e-mail address to discuss this further.  eroldan@prw.net

Karen

[Troll Control]

On 2006-01-10 21:01:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-01-10 12:08:00, Anonymous wrote:


"

On 2006-01-10 11:43:00, Anonymous wrote:



"No studies?  Are you nuts?  You must not have done even a cursory review of materials out there.







NAMH, NIH both released studies showing that RTC treatment doesn't work and makes behavior WORSE in the kids exposed to them.  See askquestions.org for a jumping off point to the research claim "deosn't exist."







I know Rudy Bentz.  I know dozens of kids abused by him.  You can't tell me it didn't happen.  Just because someone hasn't been arrested (he does have an arrest record though, you just didn't look for it), charged and convicted of abuse doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Since you seem to know nothing of RTC's, let me inform you that kids have no mechanism to report abuse (they are denied contact with the outside world including reporting agencies) and often if they do report, it's a question of the "troubled kid's word" against the staff.







I have personally seen Rudy Bentz physically abuse children.  You can't say it didn't happen.  You weren't there, I was.  So were many others abused at his hands.







You luckily escaped the abuse that many endured.  Good for you.  It doesn't make you right."

No not NAMH or NIH, I asked about the clinical study you claim was done at ASR

But nobody ever got to ask those questions in clinical studies, because ASR never okayed another scientific study.

your words not mine.





You mention that ASR is trying to cover-up his criminal past:

I think you have a bit of an agenda in defending ASR's serious shortcomings and covering up the sordid history of the drunken vehicular manslaughterer and child abuser Rudy Bentz

your words not mine





Where is this cover-up?  When were they brought forward and then refused to be made public knowledge by ASR?





Now, seriously after all these posts, and after I catch you in a ton of lies, you keep changing your story.  Now you claim to have first hand knowledge and have personally witnessed the abuse, sorry I just cant buy it.





Next time make your claims upfront and be honest with your information.





You claim I have an agenda !!!"

http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_p ... hapiro.pdf



Here's the link to the study I reference.  My comments on it were based on my recollections from when I read it a couple of years ago.



I've got a deadline and don't have a whole lot of time to spend on this.



Julie Cochrane"

Now, New ASR Grad's Mom, take a look at the facts Julie presents here.  Obviously there has been a study completed about ASR's effectiveness.  You stated authoritatively that there was never a study done.  You used your statement as a basis to call Julie a liar.  

Evidently, she was not lying, but you were (or you were simply ignorant and used your ignorance of the facts as a basis by which to paint Julie as a prevaricator).

I'm not going to use your methodology and say everything you said is a lie simply because you were proven without a shadow of a doubt to be lying about a very important, readily verifiable fact.  What I will say, however, is that this revelation throws your credibility into the "doubtful" range.

It does give the reader some justifiable pause in accepting your comments at face value.

What do you have to say in response to the fact that you have not been forthright in your comments regarding Julie's assertion that a study has been completed regarding the efficacy of ASR?  Do you still consider her to be a liar with an agenda, or can you now be honest and say (as we have all seen quite clearly) that you are a supplier of biased information designed to support ASR's image and to erode the credibility of those with dissenting viewpoints?

[Anonymous]

I am confused. I read this entire thread. I then read all 25 pages of the study written by Valerie Shapiro. In her summary she concluded that ASR and other residential treatment progams are effective and have the potential to be even more effective.

Am I missing something?

[TheWho]

On 2006-01-11 14:25:00, Anonymous wrote:

"I am confused. I read this entire thread. I then read all 25 pages of the study written by Valerie Shapiro. In her summary she concluded that ASR and other residential treatment progams are effective and have the potential to be even more effective.



Am I missing something? "

No you read it right.  I had to hold them to task to get Julie to reveal her sources to base her (and Disfunction Junctions) anti ASR stand.  I think there is a line in there that states "65% of the kids go back using drugs."
They focus on this sole finding and disregard the rest (or never read the whole thing)
But it is a nice study (Although not a Clinical trial) which shows that these programs are headed in the right direction.  Corporations with deeper pockets (and more to lose) are stepping in and hiring better staff and utilizing models which have a proven track record.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-01-11 14:44:00, Anonymous wrote:

Corporations with deeper pockets (and more to lose) are stepping in and hiring better staff  :roll:  and utilizing models which have a proven track record.  "

What models would those be?

[TheWho]

On 2006-01-11 14:47:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-01-11 14:44:00, Anonymous wrote:


Corporations with deeper pockets (and more to lose) are stepping in and hiring better staff  :roll:  and utilizing models which have a proven track record.  "

What models would those be?"

Therapeutic models.  Each school works to a model, which defines how they will deal with situations, life steps or progress thru the program.  How and when Behavior modification is used and how. How class is structured etc.

They define and document these and change them daily or weekly and  yearly to improve them.  If they achieve a highly successful model they can apply this to other programs etc.

Very general discussion, it is much more complicated and involved than what I said.

[Troll Control]

On 2006-01-11 14:44:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-01-11 14:25:00, Anonymous wrote:


"I am confused. I read this entire thread. I then read all 25 pages of the study written by Valerie Shapiro. In her summary she concluded that ASR and other residential treatment progams are effective and have the potential to be even more effective.





Am I missing something? "

No you read it right.  I had to hold them to task to get Julie to reveal her sources to base her (and Disfunction Junctions) anti ASR stand.  I think there is a line in there that states "65% of the kids go back using drugs."

They focus on this sole finding and disregard the rest (or never read the whole thing)

But it is a nice study (Although not a Clinical trial) which shows that these programs are headed in the right direction.  Corporations with deeper pockets (and more to lose) are stepping in and hiring better staff and utilizing models which have a proven track record.  "

One, I never said anything about the results of this study (save for the 65% recidivism rate, which, coincidentally, is 2% higher than prison boot camps, so if you wanted a drug free kid, prison would have been more effective).  I only said that Julie was not lying when she said there was a study completed on ASR (a fact that you admit now).  You said she was a liar and that this study (who's results you now hold out as evidence that ASR works) did not exist.  Funny how you said it didn't exist and then later cited it as a source after you were caught in the lie.

Two, my only comments on this board in the initial discussion were that ASR is unaccredited and cannot issue diplomas, a fact that you readily agree with.

Three, my comments in regard to Rudy Bentz had nothing whatsoever to do with ASR (except their questionable judgement in hiring someone with his history), only that he had a drinking problem, abused kids and killed a man in a drunk driving episode (well documented).

You may try as you like to say that I made statements to other effects, but you, once again, will just be making it up as you go along.

The bottom line is that ASR is unaccredited, that a study was performed (remember, you called Julie a liar) and that Rudy Bentz has a decades long history of abusing children and has been arrested for serious crimes.

I only pointed out that you have a habit of lying about the facts at hand.  I attacked your credibility, not the therapy component of ASR's program.  This entire dialogue was solely about unaccredited academics until you decided you would make it about other things by calling others liars. I certainly didn't initiate that.

Anyone reading the thread can readily see that you made statements that were demonstrably false.  My point during the entire dialogue was that you are a liar.  You PERSONALLY are a liar.  I didn't lie about anything whatsoever.  I never made any claims about ASR other than they were unaccredited and that they hired a man with a long, abundantly documented history of abuse and who has been arrested for drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter.  It's all true.

[Anonymous]

She concluded it was effective because that's what she wanted to conclude.

Her data, however, does not show that it is effective.  This is why you have to read studies carefully, not just look at the abstracts and conclusions.  

The data shows that the kids stay in the clinical range for depression and other stuff and that there's no way to rule out maturation as the explanation for the results.

There was also an insanely low response rate-- response rates need to be over 60% or so (depends on sample size and some other things) for you to be able to conclude anything from a study like this, and even then, it's not worth much because there's no control group.  Her response rate was somewhere in the 25% range.  And her sample size was tiny.

Also, 100% of the respondents said they would recommend the school-- this indicates basically that people who thought the school was good bothered to return the survey while those who didn't (or those whose lives were so chaotic because they were still problematic that they didn't do so in time), didn't repond.  

This is called response or selection bias-- and it's why the Consumer Reports study that she cites is not considered meaningful by people who study this area.(also, not peer reviewed).  

100% support for the program screams response bias so loudly that most of the rest of the results are meaningless once you know that, given that all that such a biased survey can really tell is that people who liked the program thought it worked.

It is fascinating (and in line with all the other work in this area done with any methodological rigor), however, this didn't show up in more objective measures even though the respondents were true believers.

[TheWho]

I attacked your credibility, not the therapy component of ASR's program.

Thank you, with all the bullets firing at me it was hard to see, I had to read it twice.  I dont mind getting blasted, call me a liar if you like.  I am digging for the truth and the study (although not clinical) was a good find.  Its hard to get information that supports programs on fomits no one wants to cough it up.

You post a link like davemarcus.com you get blasted.  Post a link for "Help at any cost" and your a hero.  So I expect to be crucified when I speak out about my families successes and some of the kids that did well.

[TheWho]

Also, 100% of the respondents said they would recommend the school-- this indicates basically that people who thought the school was good bothered to return the survey while those who didn't (or those whose lives were so chaotic because they were still problematic that they didn't do so in time), didn't repond.

I think it is a great start, though.  If they persue it they may get those families, whos kids did not do as well, to respond, we would begin to see which programs are working and which are not.  This would go a long way in helping future parents.

This is typical in any survey.  It is hard to get the people who did not do well to get excited about a survey, alot of people would rather put it behind them.  It will be a challenge.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-01-11 16:20:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

Also, 100% of the respondents said they would recommend the school-- this indicates basically that people who thought the school was good bothered to return the survey while those who didn't (or those whose lives were so chaotic because they were still problematic that they didn't do so in time), didn't repond.

I think it is a great start, though.  If they persue it they may get those families, whos kids did not do as well, to respond, we would begin to see which programs are working and which are not.  This would go a long way in helping future parents.



This is typical in any survey.  It is hard to get the people who did not do well to get excited about a survey, alot of people would rather put it behind them.  It will be a challenge.

"

OR the 100% indicates that, as Americans, 100% of parents polled would be willing to recommend the school to receive a $1,000 commission like WWASP gives for parent referrals.

[TheWho]

On 2006-01-11 16:43:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-01-11 16:20:00, Anonymous wrote:


"

Also, 100% of the respondents said they would recommend the school-- this indicates basically that people who thought the school was good bothered to return the survey while those who didn't (or those whose lives were so chaotic because they were still problematic that they didn't do so in time), didn't repond.

I think it is a great start, though.  If they persue it they may get those families, whos kids did not do as well, to respond, we would begin to see which programs are working and which are not.  This would go a long way in helping future parents.





This is typical in any survey.  It is hard to get the people who did not do well to get excited about a survey, alot of people would rather put it behind them.  It will be a challenge.


"

OR the 100% indicates that, as Americans, 100% of parents polled would be willing to recommend the school to receive a $1,000 commission like WWASP gives for parent referrals."

Yea Maybe -- I could use an extra $1,000 (ha,ha)

[Anonymous]

ASR is an accredited school through the Mohawk school district and is inthe middle of an accreditation survey by New England school and colleges.  ASR has a brand new administration, which Rudy Benz has not been a part of for almost three years.  Their clinical processes are stronger thanks to its new clinical director and if any one want to get real answers to their questions..please visit.

i will say ASR has had its struggles but it is solid school that helps students find themselves once again!!

[Troll Control]

On 2006-01-13 10:37:00, Anonymous wrote:

"ASR is an accredited school through the Mohawk school district and is inthe middle of an accreditation survey by New England school and colleges.  ASR has a brand new administration, which Rudy Benz has not been a part of for almost three years.  Their clinical processes are stronger thanks to its new clinical director and if any one want to get real answers to their questions..please visit.



i will say ASR has had its struggles but it is solid school that helps students find themselves once again!!"

Not true.  School districts cannot accredit schools.  This is a total prevarication.

NEASC does not accredit them either:

http://www.neasc.org/roster/maa.htm

[Anonymous]

it's a slight of hand, or a statement of true ignorance.
private schools must report to the district once a year with demographics, etc. but they are not 'accredited' by them.
people throw terms like licensed and accredited around all the time without understanding what they mean. sometimes it's intentional to deceive, sometimes just pure ignorance.
call your local school district and ask if they accredit private 'schools' OR mind fucking mills.