Programs - A Pedophile's Dream Job and a Child's Nightmare

[Whooter]

So it's safe to say that programs should be done away with, for the most part. Not much good comes of them, does it? Parents have too much money if they can afford to send a kid to one anyway, as they're usually an expensive rip-off. It would be good if most of them were just out-and-out shut down, as regulating them never seems to fully work... and you don't want to be half-assed when it comes to regulating places where abuse runs so rampant.

Here's to a world without programs!  :cheers:

If we base our decision on the research we should close the public school system down first.

That too is overrated and should be re-worked.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/

Ha,Ha,Ha



...

[Troll Control]

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Purchase Order ED-02-PO-3281.  The views expressed herein are those of the authors.  No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.


It is important to note some of the Department’s reservations about the findings in the literature review.  Specifically, the author focuses in large measure on a broad set of inappropriate behaviors designated as “sexual misconduct,” rather than “sexual abuse,” which is the term used in the statute.  Specifically, section 5414(a)(3) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of Education to conduct “[a] study regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse in schools. . . .”  (emphasis added)  The distinction between “sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” is significant in legal and other terms.  However, both are of concern to parents and the Department.


The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual misconduct.” Specifically, “sexual abuse” has been a defined term for over 17 years [18 U.S.C. § 2242].  It involves an act where one knowingly “causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear. . .” or “engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act. . . .”  Id.   “Sexual abuse” carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. Id.    

Looks like Whooter has been shining everyone on a bit here.  This is the only commissioned study I have ever read where the commissioner specifically states right in the opening remarks that the study is not valid.  So there goes that angle.  

Whooter claims this study reflects "sexual abuse" which it clearly does not, as explicitly stated. It does however cover "sexual misconduct" which, as defined, would set the program rate at 100% because of the program's inappropriate sexual disclosures and sexualized role playing, which under the guidelines of this report would be considered "sexual abuse."

I guess you have to actually read it before drawing any conclusions.  The Dept. of Ed. throws out the results in the first few pages.  Mark this one "debunked by the commissioner."

[Whooter]

Ha,Ha,Ha  nice try, He cant endorse it because of what it says about his education system!!  How many studies did the tobacco industry endorse that said tobacco causes cancer? Lol  It is an independent study that they paid for and he cannot bury it.  So it needs to be released.

He stated the interchangeability of sexual misconduct and  sexual abuse was confusing.  So this needs to be considered when drawing conclusions.

.....Finally, despite some of the above reservations about this study, the Department believes that this topic is of critical importance and that releasing the report is clearly in the public’s interest.

So the guy made his point to be known but he did release the report.  It is not invalid.

So where is the report that states MBA abused 100% of the kids and all of the kids in Aspens programs.



...

[Troll Control]

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Purchase Order ED-02-PO-3281.  The views expressed herein are those of the authors.  No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.


It is important to note some of the Department’s reservations about the findings in the literature review.  Specifically, the author focuses in large measure on a broad set of inappropriate behaviors designated as “sexual misconduct,” rather than “sexual abuse,” which is the term used in the statute.  Specifically, section 5414(a)(3) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of Education to conduct “[a] study regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse in schools. . . .”  (emphasis added)  The distinction between “sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” is significant in legal and other terms.  However, both are of concern to parents and the Department.


The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual misconduct.” Specifically, “sexual abuse” has been a defined term for over 17 years [18 U.S.C. § 2242].  It involves an act where one knowingly “causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear. . .” or “engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act. . . .”  Id.   “Sexual abuse” carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. Id.    

Looks like Whooter has been shining everyone on a bit here.  This is the only commissioned study I have ever read where the commissioner specifically states right in the opening remarks that the study is not valid.  So there goes that angle.  

Whooter claims this study reflects "sexual abuse" which it clearly does not, as explicitly stated. It does however cover "sexual misconduct" which, as defined, would set the program rate at 100% because of the program's inappropriate sexual disclosures and sexualized role playing, which under the guidelines of this report would be considered "sexual abuse."

I guess you have to actually read it before drawing any conclusions.  The Dept. of Ed. throws out the results in the first few pages.  Mark this one "debunked by the commissioner."

What it actually says is that the study was commissioned to examine sexual abuse, but instead looks at "sexual misconduct" AND conflates the two terms.  Thus, the Dept. of Ed. says right in the report, that it does not cover the proper topic, plays loose and fast with the terms and is confusing to readers because it does not examine what the law covers, sexual abuse.  While it says that sexual misconduct is an important topic, it explicitly says that this study uses the terms interchangably and improperly.  

Unfortunately the study doesn't measure what the commissioner asked for and it is clear that it is not endorsed by the Dept. of Ed.  We can only go by what's in the report, not Whooter's fantasies about why the report is deemed invalid by the Undersecretary.

[Froderik]

Let's face the facts.....most programs suck. They're in it for the money and have the "ends justify the means" mentality. Isn't it about time parents took responsibility for their kids instead of shipping them off to be "fixed"?

[Whooter]

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Purchase Order ED-02-PO-3281.  The views expressed herein are those of the authors.  No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.


It is important to note some of the Department’s reservations about the findings in the literature review.  Specifically, the author focuses in large measure on a broad set of inappropriate behaviors designated as “sexual misconduct,” rather than “sexual abuse,” which is the term used in the statute.  Specifically, section 5414(a)(3) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of Education to conduct “[a] study regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse in schools. . . .”  (emphasis added)  The distinction between “sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” is significant in legal and other terms.  However, both are of concern to parents and the Department.


The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual misconduct.” Specifically, “sexual abuse” has been a defined term for over 17 years [18 U.S.C. § 2242].  It involves an act where one knowingly “causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear. . .” or “engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act. . . .”  Id.   “Sexual abuse” carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. Id.    

Looks like Whooter has been shining everyone on a bit here.  This is the only commissioned study I have ever read where the commissioner specifically states right in the opening remarks that the study is not valid.  So there goes that angle.  

Whooter claims this study reflects "sexual abuse" which it clearly does not, as explicitly stated. It does however cover "sexual misconduct" which, as defined, would set the program rate at 100% because of the program's inappropriate sexual disclosures and sexualized role playing, which under the guidelines of this report would be considered "sexual abuse."

I guess you have to actually read it before drawing any conclusions.  The Dept. of Ed. throws out the results in the first few pages.  Mark this one "debunked by the commissioner."

What it actually says is that the study was commissioned to examine sexual abuse, but instead looks at "sexual misconduct" AND conflates the two terms.  Thus, the Dept. of Ed. says right in the report, that it does not cover the proper topic, plays loose and fast with the terms and is confusing to readers because it does not examine what the law covers, sexual abuse.  While it says that sexual misconduct is an important topic, it explicitly says that this study uses the terms interchangably and improperly.  

Unfortunately the study doesn't measure what the commissioner asked for and it is clear that it is not endorsed by the Dept. of Ed.  We can only go by what's in the report, not Whooter's fantasies about why the report is deemed invalid by the Undersecretary.

He noted his concerns but released the report.  If he felt it was invalid he could not have released the report by law.  If you feel the tobacco companies were right when they said all those studies saying smoking caused cancer were invalid then just toss it aside and light up a Winston!!!  lol

You dont have to accept the report,DJ, if it bothers you so much.  Its a free world, you can close your eyes to the problem and pretend everything is fine and kids are not being abused or subjected to sexual misconduct in the public school system.



...

[DannyB II]

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Purchase Order ED-02-PO-3281.  The views expressed herein are those of the authors.  No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.


It is important to note some of the Department’s reservations about the findings in the literature review.  Specifically, the author focuses in large measure on a broad set of inappropriate behaviors designated as “sexual misconduct,” rather than “sexual abuse,” which is the term used in the statute.  Specifically, section 5414(a)(3) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of Education to conduct “[a] study regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse in schools. . . .”  (emphasis added)  The distinction between “sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” is significant in legal and other terms.  However, both are of concern to parents and the Department.


The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual misconduct.” Specifically, “sexual abuse” has been a defined term for over 17 years [18 U.S.C. § 2242].  It involves an act where one knowingly “causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear. . .” or “engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act. . . .”  Id.   “Sexual abuse” carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. Id.    

Looks like Whooter has been shining everyone on a bit here.  This is the only commissioned study I have ever read where the commissioner specifically states right in the opening remarks that the study is not valid.  So there goes that angle.  

Whooter claims this study reflects "sexual abuse" which it clearly does not, as explicitly stated. It does however cover "sexual misconduct" which, as defined, would set the program rate at 100% because of the program's inappropriate sexual disclosures and sexualized role playing, which under the guidelines of this report would be considered "sexual abuse."

I guess you have to actually read it before drawing any conclusions.  The Dept. of Ed. throws out the results in the first few pages.  Mark this one "debunked by the commissioner."

What it actually says is that the study was commissioned to examine sexual abuse, but instead looks at "sexual misconduct" AND conflates the two terms.  Thus, the Dept. of Ed. says right in the report, that it does not cover the proper topic, plays loose and fast with the terms and is confusing to readers because it does not examine what the law covers, sexual abuse.  While it says that sexual misconduct is an important topic, it explicitly says that this study uses the terms interchangably and improperly.  

Unfortunately the study doesn't measure what the commissioner asked for and it is clear that it is not endorsed by the Dept. of Ed.  We can only go by what's in the report, not Whooter's fantasies about why the report is deemed invalid by the Undersecretary.

DJ, did you really think that the Dept.of Education was going to endorse these finding.....lol. These are the facts the DOE can spin it anyway it wants, as you can.

[Froderik]

THese fucking studies are bullshit anyway.....back to the facts: programs suck, as do the people who push them.

[Whooter]

THese fucking studies are bullshit anyway.....back to the facts: programs suck, as do the people who push them.

I hear ya, lets light up Marlboro!! Those studies dont mean crap  lol



...

[Whooter]

And, no, the 100% abuse rate was not an opinion, it was part of the investigation report of MBA.

So was it one guy who said this?  Was it the conclusion of a commission of some type?  Was there a report developed like I submitted?  Did the person (people) have a background in the area?  Degree?  Did they interview 100% of the kids?

Toss a link up and lets take a look at it.



...

[Troll Control]

THese fucking studies are bullshit anyway.....back to the facts: programs suck, as do the people who push them.

Here, here.   :cheers:

[Whooter]

And, no, the 100% abuse rate was not an opinion, it was part of the investigation report of MBA.

So was it one guy who said this?  Was it the conclusion of a commission of some type?  Was there a report developed like I submitted?  Did the person (people) have a background in the area?  Degree?  Did they interview 100% of the kids?

Toss a link up and lets take a look at it.  Anything to back it up?



...

[Troll Control]

“Because all MBA students must participate in the prescribed program, the experience of these five students is substantially consistent with that of other children who are or were enrolled at the school.  Consequently, in many ways these five youth are exemplars of the program’s treatment of its students as a whole.”

Links to three source docs found here.

[Whooter]

“Because all MBA students must participate in the prescribed program, the experience of these five students is substantially consistent with that of other children who are or were enrolled at the school.  Consequently, in many ways these five youth are exemplars of the program’s treatment of its students as a whole.”

Links to three source docs found here.

so no study?  No research was done?  No conclusion by any commission?  Just a link to Cafety...

Nice job, DJ, very credible.  So Cafety thinks that all Aspen kids are abused and you consider that to be a long term clinical study which has been peer reviewed?

Hmmm, so basically you have the opinons of a few people you have lunch together.

I am sure Aspen is doing damage control on that one!!  lol



...

[Troll Control]

You're a dope, Whooter.  The link goes to Cafety and right on that page there are three links to the actual report ("source docs"), which you don't want to acknowledge exists.  It even says "download the reports here."  I'm sure everyone else found it just fine.

See more on Aspen Education's systematic child abuse policies here.