Problems at Hyde School

[Anonymous]

"You say that Joe Gauld deserves credit for his idea but that he is abusive.  I'm very intrigued by the controversy surrounding Hyde.  What specifically was Gauld's "good idea"?  In what ways is he abusive?"

In general I would feel comfortable speaking with people who are willing to identify themselves...

I will say this: founding a school that favors the development of character more than grades or rigid discipline sounds like a good idea to me! Perhaps others did so before Mr. Gauld, but  regardless, I credit him with the resolve to bring his vision of secondary education into being.

Breaking down vulnerable kids- even if you're foolish enough to believe that it will lead to their healing- strikes me as abusive.

Merry Christmas,

Yes Joe deserves credit.  I believe Hyde was the first of it's kind.  

 I have talked to a couple of people that were in the school leadership, from my days in Bath.  I am surprised at some of the vehiment anti Joe stuff that I got from them.  I am not talking about hyde failures I am talking about kids that were paraded around as examples of the fime work that Hyde does.  I was shocked to hear Joe described as "toxic" by one.   I was surprised because this kid was a poster child.  

I had a couple of bad experiences with Joe, but I actually like him as a person.  At the same time I am concerned that from what I can glean, he is doing thing that may be bad for the current students and no one on staff has the , pardon the venacular, balls to ask him to stop.

I'm not sure that I would call indulging one's own predilection for theatrics at the expense of others' psyches to be construed as "having balls," let alone courage, but perhaps I am missing something.  I think if Joe were TRULY honest with himself, and HONESTLY dedicated in bringing out the best in kids' potential, he would alter his methods accordingly.  But I don't see that kind of flexibility or capacity to adjust coming in our lifetimes...  Personally, and with all due respect, I don't think he has the balls he was born with.  Its just all one big power trip, sprinkled with some undoubtedly and genuine good intentions.

This is my first posting on this topic.  Like some others who have posted here, I too can appreciate the concept behind Hyde.  However, our family is one of those that was attracted to Hyde because of the positive PR and then discovered that there's a very dirty lining and very thin layer of integrity.  Yes, I can name a few well-meaning, decent people who were affiliated with Hyde when we were there (very recently).  I can also name a much longer list of people at Hyde who, in my judgment, were stunted in their own development, thrived on the Hyde power trip, and addicted to the Joe Gauld, et al. elixir.  The net result, I learned, is that too many people at Hyde traded independent thinking for group think and, sadly, dripped a lot of poison onto both students and parents.  I witnessed some dreadfully destructive interactions by amateurs at Hyde who shouldn't be allowed in ANY reputable educational institution.  I'm sure some of these incidents were quite damaging to students and (in seminars) parents who were dumped on and even attacked.

The Joe Gauld phenomenon amazes me.  It didn't take me long to figure out that the man is embarrassingly transparent in his neediness and self-righteous arrogance.  I suspect that he has some major unresolved issues that explain his adolescent behavior (interestingly, Joe's mood swings, temper, and impulsive outbursts closely resemble the behavior of many of the students Hyde claims to serve so effectively--talk about irony!).  My guess is that Hyde will limp along because of Joe's involvement and the obedient, unquestioning acolytes (lemmings?).  

One of the posters here got it just right when he/she said: "Personally, and with all due respect, I don't think he [Joe Gauld] has the balls he was born with. Its just all one big power trip, sprinkled with some undoubtedly and genuine good intentions."

[gary eskow]

This is my first posting on this topic.  Like some others who have posted here, I too can appreciate the concept behind Hyde.  However, our family is one of those that was attracted to Hyde because of the positive PR and then discovered that there's a very dirty lining and very thin layer of integrity.  Yes, I can name a few well-meaning, decent people who were affiliated with Hyde when we were there (very recently).  I can also name a much longer list of people at Hyde who, in my judgment, were stunted in their own development, thrived on the Hyde power trip, and addicted to the Joe Gauld, et al. elixir.  The net result, I learned, is that too many people at Hyde traded independent thinking for group think and, sadly, dripped a lot of poison onto both students and parents.  I witnessed some dreadfully destructive interactions by amateurs at Hyde who shouldn't be allowed in ANY reputable educational institution.  I'm sure some of these incidents were quite damaging to students and (in seminars) parents who were dumped on and even attacked.

The Joe Gauld phenomenon amazes me.  It didn't take me long to figure out that the man is embarrassingly transparent in his neediness and self-righteous arrogance.  I suspect that he has some major unresolved issues that explain his adolescent behavior (interestingly, Joe's mood swings, temper, and impulsive outbursts closely resemble the behavior of many of the students Hyde claims to serve so effectively--talk about irony!).  My guess is that Hyde will limp along because of Joe's involvement and the obedient, unquestioning acolytes (lemmings?).  
---
Hard to disagree with anything you've said... but why doesn't anyone or than a current student give their name?!

[Anonymous]

This is my first posting on this topic.  Like some others who have posted here, I too can appreciate the concept behind Hyde.  However, our family is one of those that was attracted to Hyde because of the positive PR and then discovered that there's a very dirty lining and very thin layer of integrity.  Yes, I can name a few well-meaning, decent people who were affiliated with Hyde when we were there (very recently).  I can also name a much longer list of people at Hyde who, in my judgment, were stunted in their own development, thrived on the Hyde power trip, and addicted to the Joe Gauld, et al. elixir.  The net result, I learned, is that too many people at Hyde traded independent thinking for group think and, sadly, dripped a lot of poison onto both students and parents.  I witnessed some dreadfully destructive interactions by amateurs at Hyde who shouldn't be allowed in ANY reputable educational institution.  I'm sure some of these incidents were quite damaging to students and (in seminars) parents who were dumped on and even attacked.

The Joe Gauld phenomenon amazes me.  It didn't take me long to figure out that the man is embarrassingly transparent in his neediness and self-righteous arrogance.  I suspect that he has some major unresolved issues that explain his adolescent behavior (interestingly, Joe's mood swings, temper, and impulsive outbursts closely resemble the behavior of many of the students Hyde claims to serve so effectively--talk about irony!).  My guess is that Hyde will limp along because of Joe's involvement and the obedient, unquestioning acolytes (lemmings?).  
---
Hard to disagree with anything you've said... but why doesn't anyone or than a current student give their name?!

says something about the place, doesn't it?

[Anonymous]

This is my first posting on this topic.  Like some others who have posted here, I too can appreciate the concept behind Hyde.  However, our family is one of those that was attracted to Hyde because of the positive PR and then discovered that there's a very dirty lining and very thin layer of integrity.  Yes, I can name a few well-meaning, decent people who were affiliated with Hyde when we were there (very recently).  I can also name a much longer list of people at Hyde who, in my judgment, were stunted in their own development, thrived on the Hyde power trip, and addicted to the Joe Gauld, et al. elixir.  The net result, I learned, is that too many people at Hyde traded independent thinking for group think and, sadly, dripped a lot of poison onto both students and parents.  I witnessed some dreadfully destructive interactions by amateurs at Hyde who shouldn't be allowed in ANY reputable educational institution.  I'm sure some of these incidents were quite damaging to students and (in seminars) parents who were dumped on and even attacked.

The Joe Gauld phenomenon amazes me.  It didn't take me long to figure out that the man is embarrassingly transparent in his neediness and self-righteous arrogance.  I suspect that he has some major unresolved issues that explain his adolescent behavior (interestingly, Joe's mood swings, temper, and impulsive outbursts closely resemble the behavior of many of the students Hyde claims to serve so effectively--talk about irony!).  My guess is that Hyde will limp along because of Joe's involvement and the obedient, unquestioning acolytes (lemmings?).  
---
Hard to disagree with anything you've said... but why doesn't anyone or than a current student give their name?!

You asked why people don't give their names.  I can't speak for others, of course, but in my own case it's because we don't trust Hyde.  My spouse and I harbor deep resentment toward several Hyde staff who, in our opinion, were abusive, mean spirited, and horribly destructive toward one member of our family and (at least) several other students and parents.  We have not yet decided what formal action we may take against Hyde.  So, while we're interested in telling our stories and exposing Hyde far and wide, we're not ready to disclose our names in this forum.  I know that may be frustrating, but at this point it's what we feel we need to do.  I hope you understand.  In the meantime, I applaud your contributions to this web site and your balanced, reasoned, fair critique of Hyde.  I regret that Hyde administrators mistreated you so badly.

Hyde taught us many lessons, mainly with respect to how one should NOT run a school for struggling teens.  Now that we've decided to leave Hyde we're discovering that there are a number of very impressive alternatives that are far more enlightened and constructive.  We're so sad we didn't know about these alternatives when we decided to enroll our child at Hyde.  At the time we didn't know much about the "industry."  Now we do and are horrified that Hyde is able to intrude in people's lives so negatively (not that everyone has a negative experience, but there sure is a large number).  It's interesting to me that Hyde is able to survive with so many good schools out there that are so much more effective than Hyde (in my view).  Of course, with the advent of web sites like this and that Isac Corp that someone mentioned, Hyde may have a tougher time surviving in this competitive market.

[gary eskow]

You asked why people don't give their names.  I can't speak for others, of course, but in my own case it's because we don't trust Hyde.  My spouse and I harbor deep resentment toward several Hyde staff who, in our opinion, were abusive, mean spirited, and horribly destructive toward one member of our family and (at least) several other students and parents.  We have not yet decided what formal action we may take against Hyde.  So, while we're interested in telling our stories and exposing Hyde far and wide, we're not ready to disclose our names in this forum.  I know that may be frustrating, but at this point it's what we feel we need to do.  I hope you understand.  In the meantime, I applaud your contributions to this web site and your balanced, reasoned, fair critique of Hyde.  I regret that Hyde administrators mistreated you so badly.

Hyde taught us many lessons, mainly with respect to how one should NOT run a school for struggling teens.  Now that we've decided to leave Hyde we're discovering that there are a number of very impressive alternatives that are far more enlightened and constructive.  We're so sad we didn't know about these alternatives when we decided to enroll our child at Hyde.  At the time we didn't know much about the "industry."  Now we do and are horrified that Hyde is able to intrude in people's lives so negatively (not that everyone has a negative experience, but there sure is a large number).  It's interesting to me that Hyde is able to survive with so many good schools out there that are so much more effective than Hyde (in my view).  Of course, with the advent of web sites like this and that Isac Corp that someone mentioned, Hyde may have a tougher time surviving in this competitive market.

---
Unfortunately, everything you say resonates with my own experience.  I've always liked a good fight, but for some reason I can't work up any anger towards this institution. I suppose that's because I did see a number of under qualified but highly motivated people trying to do good there, and was touched by their commitment to our son.

But you're right; any institution that tolerates the level of emotional abuse that goes on at Hyde deserves to be called on the carpet.
If you'd ever like to communicate off the record, please don't hesitate to contact me via e-mail.

[Anonymous]

You asked why people don't give their names.  I can't speak for others, of course, but in my own case it's because we don't trust Hyde.  My spouse and I harbor deep resentment toward several Hyde staff who, in our opinion, were abusive, mean spirited, and horribly destructive toward one member of our family and (at least) several other students and parents.  We have not yet decided what formal action we may take against Hyde.  So, while we're interested in telling our stories and exposing Hyde far and wide, we're not ready to disclose our names in this forum.  I know that may be frustrating, but at this point it's what we feel we need to do.  I hope you understand.  In the meantime, I applaud your contributions to this web site and your balanced, reasoned, fair critique of Hyde.  I regret that Hyde administrators mistreated you so badly.

Hyde taught us many lessons, mainly with respect to how one should NOT run a school for struggling teens.  Now that we've decided to leave Hyde we're discovering that there are a number of very impressive alternatives that are far more enlightened and constructive.  We're so sad we didn't know about these alternatives when we decided to enroll our child at Hyde.  At the time we didn't know much about the "industry."  Now we do and are horrified that Hyde is able to intrude in people's lives so negatively (not that everyone has a negative experience, but there sure is a large number).  It's interesting to me that Hyde is able to survive with so many good schools out there that are so much more effective than Hyde (in my view).  Of course, with the advent of web sites like this and that Isac Corp that someone mentioned, Hyde may have a tougher time surviving in this competitive market.

---
Unfortunately, everything you say resonates with my own experience.  I've always liked a good fight, but for some reason I can't work up any anger towards this institution. I suppose that's because I did see a number of under qualified but highly motivated people trying to do good there, and was touched by their commitment to our son.

But you're right; any institution that tolerates the level of emotional abuse that goes on at Hyde deserves to be called on the carpet.
If you'd ever like to communicate off the record, please don't hesitate to contact me via e-mail.

I understand your ambivalence.  I think what's critically important is that Hyde be held accountable for its unprofessional, incompetent, and abusive practices.  That can be done at the same time one acknowledges the handful of principled, dedicated Hyde staff.  I deeply regret that people like Joe Gauld (and some others) contaminate the efforts of those at Hyde who are well meaning and sincere (although not always well trained or particularly competent).

P.S.  You may want to click on the "quote" button at the top of a message to which you are replying and then type in your comment at the end of the comment you're responding to.

[gary eskow]

I understand your ambivalence.  I think what's critically important is that Hyde be held accountable for its unprofessional, incompetent, and abusive practices.  That can be done at the same time one acknowledges the handful of principled, dedicated Hyde staff.  I deeply regret that people like Joe Gauld (and some others) contaminate the efforts of those at Hyde who are well meaning and sincere (although not always well trained or particularly competent).

P.S.  You may want to click on the "quote" button at the top of a message to which you are replying and then type in your comment at the end of the comment you're responding to.[/quote]

thanks... for some reason the quote button doesn't function properly on my Mac!

[Anonymous]

Gary,  Try typing in the commands longhand to make the box.  I'm not actually sure it will work that way, but what you want is (quote) at the beginning of the box, and (/quote) at the end of the box, substituting the appropriate bracket symbols [ or ] for the parentheses, of course (wasn't sure if i would end up creating a box by typing them in correctly).  If either of these commands is missing, the box will not be made.  Also, I'm not sure which "quote" button you are using, as there seem to be two (one as an option above as you are typing your reply).  I use the one that is at the uppermost right corner of the post I wish to respond to (obviating the need for hitting "post reply."  But do try typing the commands in if nothing else works.  Makes the reading so much clearer for all of us.  (I have a Mac too but perhaps a different model.)

[gary eskow]

Gary,  Try typing in the commands longhand to make the box.  I'm not actually sure it will work that way, but what you want is (quote) at the beginning of the box, and (/quote) at the end of the box, substituting the appropriate bracket symbols [ or ] for the parentheses, of course (wasn't sure if i would end up creating a box by typing them in correctly).  If either of these commands is missing, the box will not be made.  Also, I'm not sure which "quote" button you are using, as there seem to be two (one as an option above as you are typing your reply).  I use the one that is at the uppermost right corner of the post I wish to respond to (obviating the need for hitting "post reply."  But do try typing the commands in if nothing else works.  Makes the reading so much clearer for all of us.  (I have a Mac too but perhaps a different model.)

ok... let's see if this did it!