ASR

[Oz girl]

Oz- Toeing the party line is not what most parents hope for when a teen is sent to a program.  They WANT the kid to learn about themselves and get at what is motivating the destructive behaviors.
I have a kid who got kicked out of pre-school. He never did toe the party line. That didn't always work so well for him, but he needed to figure out when he could compromise and when he couldn't.  He didn't toe it at his program and he didn't always toe it afterwards.  
What parents want for their kids is for them to 1. stay alive 2. love and respect THEMSELVES and 3. achieve the happiness and goals they set for themselves.

Fair enough. i would say that this is the category of parent who is worried sick and given an option which seems attractive but which is exploiting their feelings of desperation. But there are many parents particularly who post on Struggling teens who seem to take their kids post programme mistakes and errors as a personal slight or who are genuinely offended if they send a kid to a place against their will and then upon visiting are met with any level of hostility. The response to these posts is often (not always and not by everyone) to vindicate the parental outrage that the kid is not reacting the way that they had hoped. There is in many cases a philosophy of ownership and an ironic sense of entitlement. " i am entitled to a well behave kid" When i am mad at my child i am entitled to expect that the rest of the family will shun them too. for obvious reasons I am not going to post the numerous specifc examples.

[Deborah]

True, but how are any of us ever going to know.  The same effect could take place by tough displine at home, drawing a hard line.  The kids feel wronged or their rights violated and never see you in the same way again or afraid to challenge the rules because they dont want to be grounded again.  This effect doesnt have to be limited to a TBS stay.....

You'll know if you want to know. Discipline, drawing a hard line, being grounded doesn't result in PTSD or severe 'depression'. If a kid is afraid to challenge the rules, the environment is too authoritarian, whether at home or program. If the rules are called 'agreements', that's manipulating and deceptive. If the punishment is too extreme, that's abusive.
It's true though, when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[Oz girl]

Why the focus on drawing a hard line anyway? of course kids need boundaries but this rhetoric of discipline and hardline rules makes no sense. Few workplaces have such a philosophy and those which do have a high turnover rate because they suck and people hate being there. What is the wider social good of continuous discipline, excessive structure and a long list of rules anyway?

[Deborah]

Hard lines are way overused, but there is a time and place for hard lines. If 'any' kid is breaking things in my home, for instance, I'm going to draw a damn hard line if necessary. Zero tolerance is unrealistic and ineffective.

[TheWho]

Hard lines are way overused, but there is a time and place for hard lines. If 'any' kid is breaking things in my home, for instance, I'm going to draw a damn hard line if necessary. Zero tolerance is unrealistic and ineffective.

I am an adamant believer that Hard lines are effective in various situations where you can live with some flexibility and pose a warning or two...... But, in my opinion Zero tolerance is ineffective only for the kid who just broke the rules, because he is gone, history.......  but extremely effective on the other kids witnessing the rules being properly enforced.

[Anonymous]

It's an effective tactic indeed. For example, one well-equipped, adequately-executed armed assault on a Therapeutic Boarding School with accompanying arson and Al-Qaeda-like execution of any adults who weren't annihilated in the initial attack, will effectively scare potential programmies out of the business, possibly scare some others into shutdown, wise up a great many parents to a danger they weren't considering (thereby reducing demand as well as supply), and terrify other programmies into possibly self-destructive actions.

The process should be repeated for maximum effectiveness.

And it will not initiate the usual counter-response (as in patriotic, familial, or other situations where lives are threatened), as these people have nothing to fall back on but their own sadism. They'll fall like a house of cards.

So, yes, TheWho, Zero Tolerance is an extremely effective technique and I'm glad you've suggested it.

[Deborah]

Hard lines are way overused, but there is a time and place for hard lines. If 'any' kid is breaking things in my home, for instance, I'm going to draw a damn hard line if necessary. Zero tolerance is unrealistic and ineffective.

I am an adamant believer that Hard lines are effective in various situations where you can live with some flexibility and pose a warning or two...... But, in my opinion Zero tolerance is ineffective only for the kid who just broke the rules, because he is gone, history.......  but extremely effective on the other kids witnessing the rules being properly enforced.

Is this possibly why you had a hard time with your daughter. A hardline is a hardline, as in, you will not hit me again, you will not break my personal belongings, etc. There's no room for 'flexibility' with a hardline. Zero tolerance will not be 'effective' for some 'witnesses', some will line up to be the next to challenge the ridiculous policy. Why do you think kids in TBS spend their first few months in restrictions? Too many irrational, hardlines. No room for negotiation. No flexibility.

[TheWho]

I don?t think zero tolerance is effective in all instances or situations.  For example if my daughter had a sleep over and one of her friends threw a brick and shattered the bedroom window for the fun of it, that person would not be allowed back into my home.  On the other hand if one of her friends were chewing gum at the dinner table and we reminded her that we had a rule against that and we needed to remind her everytime she came over I don?t think we would kick her out because of it, we would work with her.
So not all consequences apply to all situations.

Schools need to enforce rules and address problems more quickly because they would never catch up.  If a child took a marker and wrote on the wall and the approach was ?Oh, please don?t do that we have a rule against it?, ?Then 3 more kids do it and you respond the same way??..then 5 kids  and at the same time kids are jumping and standing on their desk.. and your response is ?We have rules against that, please don?t do that?.   Everyone loses??When you have 1 teacher/person and several kids you need to set clear boundaries, nip it in the bud and hand out harsh consequences and set an example.

[Troll Control]

Zero tolerance will not be 'effective' for some 'witnesses',

This is true.  All relevent research shows that when a subject witnesses the punishment of another, it has nearly zero effect on subsequent behaviors of the subject.

One easy case in point is the death penalty.  Study after study show that the death penalty has no inhibitive value - no matter how many we execute for some offense, let's say murder, there is absolutely zero effect relating to deterrence.

[Deborah]

Zero tolerance will not be 'effective' for some 'witnesses',

This is true.  All relevent research shows that when a subject witnesses the punishment of another, it has nearly zero effect on subsequent behaviors of the subject.

One easy case in point is the death penalty.  Study after study show that the death penalty has no inhibitive value - no matter how many we execute for some offense, let's say murder, there is absolutely zero effect relating to deterrence.

Yet, they continue to kill (hearts, minds, bodies) in the name of good, cause they don't know what else to do, and/or to satiate their sadistic desires.

[Oz girl]

I do not believe in the death penalty at all. However at least in the case of a prisoner on death row, they have been before a judge and jury with legal representation. They have been found guilty of a serious crime and this while undoubtedly barbaric is the sentence a judge has handed down which the convicted criminal has the right to appeal. Also nobody has the hypocrisy to claim it is an act in the criminals best interest. it is usually promoted as what is best for wider society

A kid who is locked up in a TBS has none of these rights and is told that the action is in their best interest. Nobody independent (in most cases) makes the judgement call

[Nihilanthic]

Well, there is the whole thing that dead people can not commit crimes and people IN jail are not elsewhere committing the same crimes..

it just comes down to if you're willing to kill or incarcerate for life or not.  

[TheWho]

Zero tolerance will not be 'effective' for some 'witnesses',

True, but this can be effective for many (maybe not all).  I don?t think any set deterrent is going to be effective for everyone that is watching.  If a kid shows up at football practice high or drunk and gets kicked off the team, then that will be a deterrent for the others.  The coach has defined a rule and implemented corrective action or punishment and sends a message to others on the team.  I am sure there would be other kids who will do the same thing to defy authority or make a point but for the majority it can be effective.

[Nihilanthic]

Zero tolerance will not be 'effective' for some 'witnesses',

True, but this can be effective for many (maybe not all).  I don?t think any set deterrent is going to be effective for everyone that is watching.  If a kid shows up at football practice high or drunk and gets kicked off the team, then that will be a deterrent for the others.  The coach has defined a rule and implemented corrective action or punishment and sends a message to others on the team.  I am sure there would be other kids who will do the same thing to defy authority or make a point but for the majority it can be effective.

You got some proof to go with that assertion, Who?

[TheWho]

Zero tolerance will not be 'effective' for some 'witnesses',

True, but this can be effective for many (maybe not all).  I don?t think any set deterrent is going to be effective for everyone that is watching.  If a kid shows up at football practice high or drunk and gets kicked off the team, then that will be a deterrent for the others.  The coach has defined a rule and implemented corrective action or punishment and sends a message to others on the team.  I am sure there would be other kids who will do the same thing to defy authority or make a point but for the majority it can be effective.

You got some proof to go with that assertion, Who?

Actually it happened when I was running track in high school.  The word got out about this kid on the football team and everyone was talking about how their parents would kill them if that happened to them and you could see the kids were a little more cautious about using and there wasn?t another instance, at least, while I was there.