On 2004-03-11 12:03:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I was a student at the Family Foundation School and I graduated from there in August of 1997. While I don't necessarialy agree with the the methods of some of the staff members I don't belive that the school is as horrible or terrifying as people on the board have been making it seem. Yes the school has very strict policies and the rules are quite restrictive but lets face it the kids that are there are not there because they have good decision making skills in the first place. As with any place that a child is forced to be they make it worse then it truly is. I have seen some unethical things happen there and quite honestly I was appaled at some actions of SOME of the staff memebers but the majority of the staff memebers were helpful, understanding and caring. There is no rule book with how to deal with out of control teenagers, some things work for some while other methods are needed with others. Most of the students who are sent to the family are at the point that the next step for them is jail, a mental institution or even death and in that comparison the family sounds the best to me. I think the reason people are so astounded by the family's ways is that society has spolied the youth today. In the old tv shows and movies didn't the kids eat allt he food on their plate, didn't they obey their parents and follow their curfew? The family taught me many things and while I do feel there are a few things they could've done better I don't think they should be condemed for trying to help the kids that no one else seems to care about. The Family is the ONLY reason I even graduated high school and went to college on an academic scholarship."
Your "the family" makes me think of the Manson Family, and other cults. Not a good association.
Certain TV shows, like the ones you're referring to, showed an idealized reality that never really was for the overwhelming majority of families.
Did kids say more Sirs and Ma'ams and were they more polite in, say, the fifties and before? Yes, probably. Did they eat all the food on their plate? That probably depended on how expensive or scarce food was.
In *my* extended family two generations ago, people ate everything they could get on their plate because they were hungry and frequently couldn't quite get enough to eat. But there wasn't one of them that would have kept their children hungry on purpose if more and better food had been available.
In WWI, my maternal grandmother's brothers raised rabbits to sell to others for meat. Then the market fell out and their dad tried to recoup some of their losses by cooking some of the rabbits for their table. I *assure* you they did *not* eat everything on their plate that night and *weren't* punished for it.
My paternal grandfather always chose the chicken neck as his first piece of fried chicken, having gotten used to eating it back when that was all that was left of the chicken by the time the adults got through. Yes, the way he was raised was harsher on kids, but he and my grandmother didn't think it was right except when driven by sheer unavoidable grinding poverty.
In a society where obesity is far more of a problem than starvation or malnutrition, I would *rather* my child leave food on her plate on the rare occasions that her eyes are bigger than her stomach. We just watch her portions and stop her from putting too much on her plate, reminding her that she *can* go back for seconds if she's still hungry.
One of the problems that makes abuse continue in a vicious cycle from generation to generation is that victims of abuse often take the attitude, "Well, I was treated like that, and my daddy was treated like that, and it didn't hurt us none."
Children should be treated as well as an adult, when they're behavior is the best that can reasonably be expected from their age (two year olds *will* throw tantrums, ten to thirteen year olds *will* engage in some social cruelty). When they misbehave, they should be corrected gently but firmly. When they engage in positive behavior in something that's tough for them, or neutral behavior that's incompatible with a problem behavior you're training out, they should be praised and hugged. They should frequently be hugged and told you love them for no reason at all other than that you really do.
They should *not* be told, "I love you" by strangers taking money to care for them, because it makes a mockery of the words and makes them feel the absence of the people who really *do* love them more keenly.
That a child might need to be in a mental hospital should *never* be used as a reason for placement in a TBS. If the child doesn't have one of the major mental illnesses, he doesn't need to be in a mental hospital. If the child *does* have one of the major mental illnesses, being subjected to the psychological stressors of being placed in a very strict and highly structured program is one of the worst things possible for that child.
Many people compare TBS's to military boot camp and point to the good results boot camp demonstrates in turning soft, sloppy, undisciplined civilians into fine, fit, neat young soldiers.
What they forget is that the military knows full well the dangers of subjecting a mentally ill person to that kind of psychological stress---which is why they almost never accept recruits with a major mental illness, and why if a recruit with a major mental illness slips through the cracks and gets into bootcamp, they discharge that person as soon as they become aware of the person. Recruits with major mental illnesses are not given dishonorable discharges, nor less than honorable discharges. They're given honorable discharges "for the good of the service."
People with major mental illnesses need to be *shielded* from avoidable psychological stressors, not dumped into a psychological pressure cooker in the mistaken belief that it will "cure" them.
No TBS can "cure" a major mental illness in any patient. But they can sure trigger them in genetically susceptible patients or worsen them in patients that already have one.
I am Timoclea.
