Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on October 17, 2005, 11:28:00 AM
-
ok, so I've been pondering this issue for a while...I want to know if America has a problem with their children and if anyone thinks this has far more to do with American 'culture' (or lack their of) in general, consumerism, etc. and attempts at containment. What I mean by containment is that kids are growing up quickly, being marketed to and being pushed to 'be number 1' so to speak in our increasingly- I would say, almost nothing but- competetive world where you have to fight to survive and reach the centers of power...does that make sense??
-
That's why I support the notion that they need to be employed as soon as they demonstrate that they want to be treated as an adult- aka rebellion.
Why do parents shield their kids from THAT harsh reality, then lock them up in a psuedo reality warehouse to keep them out of trouble and their grades up so they can get into a 'good' college?
-
I don't think so -- at least in my experience -- teenagers tend to fuck around whatever part of the world they are from. It's not about society as much as age, you are transitioning from being a child to an adult. Some choose to learn things the hard way, others choose another path. I think the problem is that people see something as abnormal, or wrong. It's not, it's normal. Sure, it's scary as hell while you are going through it, but it serves a purpose. It makes you a stronger adult.
I do support parents teaching their children responsibility, and definitely not spoiling them or giving them a free ride. This does nothing to prepare you for real life.
Sending a kid to these programs is one of the worst lessons of responsibility I can imagine. The parents completely shift the blame to the teen, and then send them to LGA seminars to grind it into their head.
Good parents don't need programs!
-
On 2005-10-17 13:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I don't think so -- at least in my experience -- teenagers tend to fuck around whatever part of the world they are from. It's not about society as much as age, you are transitioning from being a child to an adult. Some choose to learn things the hard way, others choose another path. I think the problem is that people see something as abnormal, or wrong. It's not, it's normal. Sure, it's scary as hell while you are going through it, but it serves a purpose. It makes you a stronger adult.
I do support parents teaching their children responsibility, and definitely not spoiling them or giving them a free ride. This does nothing to prepare you for real life.
Sending a kid to these programs is one of the worst lessons of responsibility I can imagine. The parents completely shift the blame to the teen, and then send them to LGA seminars to grind it into their head.
Good parents don't need programs!"
I agree that it's more about age, but mistakes cost more than they used to. Kids in the 70's could usually get away with having a bad trip, but kids now are dealing with meth--a drug you can get addicted to the first time you use it. Kids in the 70's had problems with things like gonorrhea; now it's AIDS. Nice idea to let them simply learn through natural consequences, trial and error, but too many won't make it past that first lesson.
I don't mean any disrespect, but do you really know what programs teach about responsibility (and which programs teach what lessons)? And what does blame have to do with it? The whole idea is to stop worrying about blaming people or looking the way your parents expect, and be responsible for your own decisions. If that's the worst you could imagine, stretch a little.
For some kids, the worst is when they start acting out and everyone excuses it, not realizing the kid wants to be in control, but doesn't know how. Or not recognizing the kid is desperate for some help and attention. Kids pick up on that patronizing attitude that kids will be kids. They deserve to be taken more seriously.
If you expect kids to act helpless, they will. If you expect them to take the initiative and change their lives, they'll do that most times, too. Even very fine parents have found themselves at a loss with kids this age. Is it really an awful thing to look to others for help? And what are "good" parents? Most of us are good and bad, stumbling along doing our best to love the kids where they're at, allow them their autonomy, but know when to catch them when they fall.
"Be kind. Everyone you meet is engaged in a great battle."
::heart::
-
Well, "hello" Since when does "looking to others for help" mean sending your kid to a wilderness program to have them "BROKEN DOWN" before enrolling the kid in a long-term-treatment program to "BUILD THEM UP" until they start behaving "EXACTLY LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO?"
-
Well now, if you really want to get into it, there's a whole raft of good writing on the topic of kids ta' day. Mike Males has a lot to say about it. So does Grace Llewellyn.
While I do agree that kids are under a LOT more pressure in some ways than in days past. And I think Mike Males is onto something w/ his theory about culture shock. It scares the SHIT out of us WASPs when our kids bring home Latin lingo and Ghetto styles. We just have no sense of humor about that sort of thing.
But, on the other hand, kids are not allowed to do or even THINK about anything important anymore. They get totally meaningless trophies and awards for nothing (every kid gets one so no one gets their feelings hurt). They're not allowed to work, unless they're in show biz or you live in an area where they haven't yet outlawed paper routes for kids. Did you know that under provisions of the PATRIOT[sic] Act, kids are no longer allowed to have any sort of bank account? I mean we used to have to co-sign. But now, they can only have a custodial account, unless the account was established prior to implimentation of those banking measures.
So we have teenagers (actually, full grown adults saddled w/ artificial legal dissabilities and social attitudes to match) who have never had any practice at making decisions or taking chances that matter. And then we wonder why they're so damned poor at assessing the relative risks of, say, meth vs. pot or consumation of a meaningful romance w/ a well known and trusted love interest vs. giving head like it was shaking hands.
And your solution to the problem is to futher restrict them? To lock them down, remove ALL choices and bully them into adopting (or pretending to adopt) your beliefs and standards?
That doesn't make any sense at all. Nothing wrong with seeking help if you need it. But going blindly about it, trusting total strangers to employ radical methods on your very own children?
Sorry, hon. That's a mistake. And you're old enough to know better.
Theology: The effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.
--H. L. Mencken, American publisher
-
On 2005-10-17 14:14:00, Antigen wrote:
"Well now, if you really want to get into it, there's a whole raft of good writing on the topic of kids ta' day. Mike Males has a lot to say about it. So does Grace Llewellyn.
While I do agree that kids are under a LOT more pressure in some ways than in days past. And I think Mike Males is onto something w/ his theory about culture shock. It scares the SHIT out of us WASPs when our kids bring home Latin lingo and Ghetto styles. We just have no sense of humor about that sort of thing.
But, on the other hand, kids are not allowed to do or even THINK about anything important anymore. They get totally meaningless trophies and awards for nothing (every kid gets one so no one gets their feelings hurt). They're not allowed to work, unless they're in show biz or you live in an area where they haven't yet outlawed paper routes for kids. Did you know that under provisions of the PATRIOT[sic] Act, kids are no longer allowed to have any sort of bank account? I mean we used to have to co-sign. But now, they can only have a custodial account, unless the account was established prior to implimentation of those banking measures.
So we have teenagers (actually, full grown adults saddled w/ artificial legal dissabilities and social attitudes to match) who have never had any practice at making decisions or taking chances that matter. And then we wonder why they're so damned poor at assessing the relative risks of, say, meth vs. pot or consumation of a meaningful romance w/ a well known and trusted love interest vs. giving head like it was shaking hands.
And your solution to the problem is to futher restrict them? To lock them down, remove ALL choices and bully them into adopting (or pretending to adopt) your beliefs and standards?
That doesn't make any sense at all. Nothing wrong with seeking help if you need it. But going blindly about it, trusting total strangers to employ radical methods on your very own children?
Sorry, hon. That's a mistake. And you're old enough to know better.
Theology: The effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.
--H. L. Mencken, American publisher
"
I agree with you that we as a society don't allow kids to make enough of their own choices, but your logic fails when you make some assumptions that aren't true:
"And your solution to the problem is to futher restrict them? To lock them down, remove ALL choices and bully them into adopting (or pretending to adopt) your beliefs and standards?"
The program doesn't restrict them. It makes them earn all those things they thought were god-given, i.e. television, candy, etc. It's not a lockdown, and there's not even a fence. And one of the first things parents learn to accept is that the kids will choose their own beliefs and standards, and our job is to support them in that. In other words, what our kids do might not look the way we want, and that's OK. The idea is to agree on a few basics: no drugs, no arrests, take care of the things you have, finish school. To me, that kind of acceptance and compromise looks a lot like what you're suggesting.
"Nothing wrong with seeking help if you need it. But going blindly about it, trusting total strangers to employ radical methods on your very own children?"
Blindly? That's a wild assumption. There's a ton of information out there, and parents not only tour the school, but talk to other parents--supportive and otherwise--and have a chance to talk to any students we want to, without staff listening. And radical? More like common sense. If my daughter has decided all I do for her is worthless, show her its worth. If she thinks everything she does is meaningless, show her the consequences of her actions. If she thinks she's utterly helpless and we're contolling her, step back and hand the reins to her, so she can make it work for herself, the way she thinks it should look.
Most important is the level of family involvement (Why do so many people on this site get this wrong?!) At many programs, parents are required to participate in every decision, and so are the kids. There are parents at the program every day, working with teachers, therapists, etc. The family is changing, not just the kid. Strangers? No, not by a long way.
The missing piece in your position seems to be a means of distinguishing between good and bad programs, or even acknowledging that such a need exists. It simply is not true that all programs look alike, from their security provisons to their behavior plans.
-
Well, ANON why don't you just provide a list of these "good, wholesome, schools that allow all this parental involvement?" Please help me out here.
-
On 2005-10-18 07:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Well, ANON why don't you just provide a list of these "good, wholesome, schools that allow all this parental involvement?" Please help me out here."
Friend,
Provide us with a list of those that don't.
-
On 2005-10-18 09:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-10-18 07:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Well, ANON why don't you just provide a list of these "good, wholesome, schools that allow all this parental involvement?" Please help me out here."
Friend,
Provide us with a list of those that don't."
LOL, you program apologists are so damn ignorant it's hilarious.
Pssst ... nobody is buying what you are selling.
Perhaps the ST program dependent parents are interested? I hear tell that forum is polluted with teen helper wannabees and TOUGHLOVE addicts. :rofl:
Here's the link:
http://www.strugglingteens.com (http://www.strugglingteens.com)
:wave:
-
On 2005-10-18 07:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Well, ANON why don't you just provide a list of these "good, wholesome, schools that allow all this parental involvement?" Please help me out here."
Just starting reading these posts: "Swift River" is a program which involves the entire family and takes the position that each family member needs to be involved. No fences no locks no abuse, food is good, well pretty good.
Even without knowing Swift river I feel it would be short sighted to think all schools are abusive and harm kids.
-
Just asking for a list of the GOOD ones that don't abuse and harm kids. LIST THEM!
-
On 2005-10-18 10:15:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Just asking for a list of the GOOD ones that don't abuse and harm kids. LIST THEM!"
"Academy at Swift River" for one.
-
The web page for Swift River states the following, these are THEIR WORDS, not mine.
Lots of "love, home-away-from-home, emotional growth potential."
Life: dictated by TREMENDOUS stucture, including weekends.
Requires a 15 month placement, and required Parent Seminars.
Academic: not verification if any of the "teachers" are certified.
Swift River is a "CANDIDATE" for accreditation.
Peer reinforcement--students are assigned important roles of leadership and holding students accountable, even inside the classrooms.
Lists off campus activities: but makes reference "to those who must remain on campus."
Discusses the transition home, referring to students returning to an "often LONELY, HOSTILE WORLD."
There are a lot of "red flags."
I certainly do not want my child attending a "SCHOOL" that is NOT accredited, and that may not have certified teachers. I do not approve of KIDS SUPERVISING KIDS, and holding other kids accountable for their behaviors. I would not want to participate in any required Parents Seminars. AND my child would be returning to a loving family, NOT some lonely, hostile world.
HOW ABOUT THAT LIST?
-
On 2005-10-18 10:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The web page for Swift River states the following, these are THEIR WORDS, not mine.
Lots of "love, home-away-from-home, emotional growth potential."
Life: dictated by TREMENDOUS stucture, including weekends.
Requires a 15 month placement, and required Parent Seminars.
Academic: not verification if any of the "teachers" are certified.
Swift River is a "CANDIDATE" for accreditation.
Peer reinforcement--students are assigned important roles of leadership and holding students accountable, even inside the classrooms.
Lists off campus activities: but makes reference "to those who must remain on campus."
Discusses the transition home, referring to students returning to an "often LONELY, HOSTILE WORLD."
There are a lot of "red flags."
I certainly do not want my child attending a "SCHOOL" that is NOT accredited, and that may not have certified teachers. I do not approve of KIDS SUPERVISING KIDS, and holding other kids accountable for their behaviors. I would not want to participate in any required Parents Seminars. AND my child would be returning to a loving family, NOT some lonely, hostile world.
HOW ABOUT THAT LIST?"
Oh I see, your one of those people that judges a school based on their web page.
***Lots of "love, home-away-from-home, emotional growth potential."***
Seems okay
***Life: dictated by TREMENDOUS stucture, including weekends.***
Nothing wrong yet
***Requires a 15 month placement, and required Parent Seminars.***
Okay, parental involvement (like I mentioned)
***Academic: not verification if any of the "teachers" are certified.***
Okay doesnt say they are not (in 2003, math, science, english were certified, I was there)
***Swift River is a "CANDIDATE" for accreditation.***
Okay, so whats the point? They could have said nothing. It goes like this, not accredited, candidate, accredited, in that order. Every school in America has to go thru these steps. The school in the town next to me just lost their accreditation because the square footage of the building didnt keep up with the growth of the town. Doesnt mean the teachers are bad or they abuse the kids!!!
***Peer reinforcement--students are assigned important roles of leadership and holding students accountable, even inside the classrooms.***
Nothing wrong with building leadership skills. Not like they are passing laws or handling the money.
***Lists off campus activities: but makes reference "to those who must remain on campus."***
Yes, like in life, all good things come to those who earn them and of course each peer group are at different stages so not everyone travels off campus at the same time.
***Discusses the transition home, referring to students returning to an "often LONELY, HOSTILE WORLD."***
Yes,Yes -- If the parents dont work hard and change their bad habits too sometimes. The child needs to be prepared to reimmerge into the enviourment from which he or she came. Like I said it is a family program, not just one kid.
***I would not want to participate in any required Parents Seminars. AND my child would be returning to a loving family, NOT some lonely, hostile world.***
So you expect the school to do all the work!!! Thats what is wrong with most families today, expecting the school system and day care to raise your kids for you. Sometimes the kids need to be removed from the family because the family is screwed up NOT THE KID, and the entire family needs to participate in order to effect any change.
You know you really didnt read the ASR web site, that was too easy, its not a bad school, but I do agree that there are bad ones out there.
I can only name the schools I know first hand anything else would be hearsay.
-
Don't get into a debate about schools with these kids. It's a waste of time. They have no credibility with anyone- they have made sure of that with their circular arguments, generalizations and immature attacks.
-
On 2005-10-18 12:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Don't get into a debate about schools with these kids. It's a waste of time. They have no credibility with anyone- they have made sure of that with their circular arguments, generalizations and immature attacks."
Sounds like a program parent to me! :lol:
-
do not send you kid to Hidden Lake Academy I know some really good schools you can private message me
-
On 2005-10-18 12:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Don't get into a debate about schools with these kids. It's a waste of time. They have no credibility with anyone- they have made sure of that with their circular arguments, generalizations and immature attacks."
I couldn't agree more. It's nice to see some like-minded folks hanging around here. I despise every teen I've ever come across, and these posters are no different. As far as I am concerned, they all should be sent to programs. I'd love to have you sign my petition to send every teen to a program. I think we should cut all social program funding, and use that money to susbidize a local WWASP at each public school. We can install a hobbit and isolation area, and maybe get this epidemic of out of control teen syndrome under control. The teen scum needs some Gilcrease seminars. I want to see them cry! :flame: :flame:
(http://http://thelastminute.typepad.com/blog/images/stupid_soldier.jpg)
-
On 2005-10-18 13:11:00, Kcmoney05 wrote:
"do not send you kid to Hidden Lake Academy I know some really good schools you can private message me
"
Really? Please, feel free to post the names of these schools publicly, along with what's so good about them.
Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?
--Arthur C. Clarke, author
-
Kcmoney: and just what is your Money % for a referral fee? And PLEASE do not tell me you do this to "help the children! or to HELP FAMILIES HEAL"
LIST THESE FINE PROGRAMS YOU ARE SO PROUD OF...oops that might just cut out your referral $$$ though wouldn't it?
-
On 2005-10-18 13:25:00, Antigen wrote:
"
On 2005-10-18 13:11:00, Kcmoney05 wrote:
"do not send you kid to Hidden Lake Academy I know some really good schools you can private message me
"
Really? Please, feel free to post the names of these schools publicly, along with what's so good about them.
Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?
--Arthur C. Clarke, author
"
Antigen -- Anything constructive has to be discussed off line or we would be innundated with garbage. Even if the program mentions that it has a "structured" curriculum it is considered abusive to some and sounds suspicious to most. Even if a school is working towards a good goal like getting accredited it is viewed as a negative. There are many good schools, but like they say one bad apple brings them all down. If someone gave me a list of bad schools I could go to their web site and make a list of some great things they are doing, but that wouldnt be constructive nor would it lay a foundation for any forward thinking discussions.
We need to focus more on the future of the kids and how we can turn some of these schools around thru standards and minimum requirements not by bashing and slinging dirt, its not helping the kids and I think we should hold that up a little higher than we have been around here.
okay I'll step down, I needed that.
-
Swift River can not be placed on the "Good School List." There are some basic standards that must be met to get on the GOOD LIST:
Accreditation
Certified Teachers
Adult Supervision: NOT supervision by PEERS
Realization that this is a "SCHOOL"--not a FAMILY...these kids already have a family.
Inclusion of all kids in all activities
Licensed by the State
So, sorry! Swift River will not do.
LIST the other schools you know that are "good."
-
Then list the "many good schools" you know about. Why keep us in the dark?
-
Mcmoney what happened to all the coarse, cursing langange you are throwing around on the TROUBLED TEEN INDUSTRY thread under "any counselors out there?"....
You seem to be very angry about something, now don't you?
And you want to refer folks to a "GOOD SCHOOL?"
-
correction: it's HIDDEN LAKE ACADEMY; "any counselors out there?"
-
On 2005-10-18 14:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Swift River can not be placed on the "Good School List." There are some basic standards that must be met to get on the GOOD LIST:
Accreditation
Certified Teachers
Adult Supervision: NOT supervision by PEERS
Realization that this is a "SCHOOL"--not a FAMILY...these kids already have a family.
Inclusion of all kids in all activities
Licensed by the State
So, sorry! Swift River will not do.
LIST the other schools you know that are "good."
"
Sorry I wasnt asking for your blessing, I was telling you that it is a GOOD school, You know nothing about ASR. You spent 2 minutes reading thier web site! If you have anything to add that is first hand I will let you vote.
-
SORRY, I do get to vote: because I GET TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO ENROLL MY CHILD THERE.
I VOTE NO!
(And, let's not forget: MY OPINION is not even based on a criminal background check on the people employed at this place. Wonder what that might bring to light?)
-
On 2005-10-18 14:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Swift River can not be placed on the "Good School List." There are some basic standards that must be met to get on the GOOD LIST:
Accreditation
Certified Teachers
Adult Supervision: NOT supervision by PEERS
Realization that this is a "SCHOOL"--not a FAMILY...these kids already have a family.
Inclusion of all kids in all activities
Licensed by the State
So, sorry! Swift River will not do.
LIST the other schools you know that are "good."
"
I don't agree with your criteria. For instance, if all kids are included in all activities, there is nothing for others to work toward. Motivation is already a problem for most teens. Another problem: Some states don't have licensing. Does that preclude programs in those states doing a good job? And having accreditation and certified teachers: What about all the programs whose students attend public high schools?
I think your post does point up one problem: Because there are so many good ways to approach working with kids, coming up with criteria to apply across the board is tough. Maybe one question could be "Does this program do what it says it does," i.e. if it claims accreditation, it ought to have it.
Another problem that's illustrated by your post is the tendency of most of us to think we can define success for a particular kid or family. No wonder kids are confused.
For a lot of parents, success has been measured in accumulation of goods. The kids show that through their disregard for things like education, personal integrity, a commitment to good health, etc.
It might not hurt here to open your mind to other approaches, and identify things to agree on: basic safety and access to medical care; a good meds policy; close family participation and communication; clear and honest representation of program operations.
At any rate, from my own personal experience, here are some programs I know to be very good:
Spring Creek
Explorations
Montana Academy
Monarch
Mission Mountain
Anyone have some to add?
-
On 2005-10-18 14:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"SORRY, I do get to vote: because I GET TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO ENROLL MY CHILD THERE.
I VOTE NO!
(And, let's not forget: MY OPINION is not even based on a criminal background check on the people employed at this place. Wonder what that might bring to light?)"
***>(And, let's not forget: MY OPINION is not even based on a criminal background check on the people employed at this place. Wonder what that might bring to light?)"***
See thats what I mean, amazing. So that is what it boils down to. Slam everyone, rip them apart and justify it because you didnt order a background check on them yet, wow , you must do alot of Apologizing when the reports finally come in.
I did accept your vote because you DO decide whether to send your kid or not, but I crossed it out for that last comment in Parenthesis, its ignorant and shows you make poor decisions. Sorry
-
On 2005-10-18 14:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
Antigen -- Anything constructive has to be discussed off line or we would be innundated with garbage. Even if the program mentions that it has a "structured" curriculum it is considered abusive to some and sounds suspicious to most. Even if a school is working towards a good goal like getting accredited it is viewed as a negative. There are many good schools, but like they say one bad apple brings them all down. If someone gave me a list of bad schools I could go to their web site and make a list of some great things they are doing, but that wouldnt be constructive nor would it lay a foundation for any forward thinking discussions.
We need to focus more on the future of the kids and how we can turn some of these schools around thru standards and minimum requirements not by bashing and slinging dirt, its not helping the kids and I think we should hold that up a little higher than we have been around here.
okay I'll step down, I needed that."
O..... k.....
Uhm, well if you were to post the names of these good schools of yours, odds are pretty good that someone who may read your post might have firsthand experience w/ them and be willing to share. And we could all have a shot at looking around for whatever info we could find, such as the histories of the people involved, things like that. No one is forced to believe any of it. We don't tilt the field here; all opinions are welcome.
But if you don't think they can stand that kind of scrutiny, ok. That's fine. I don't know what you've got to hide, but ok. Would someone please PM this person and then post the names of these great schools so we can have a look?
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
--James Madison, U.S. President
-
On 2005-10-18 14:43:00, Anonymous wrote:
At any rate, from my own personal experience, here are some programs I know to be very good:
Spring Creek
Explorations
Montana Academy
Monarch
Mission Mountain
Anyone have some to add?
Yes! Ft. Lauderdale Christian School was a very good school when I attended. That was back in the dark ages, though, when we had rocks for pets and wore disco stuff for about 10 minutes. I can't say how they are now.
But I can add some context, though.
Spring Creek
Explorations
Montana Academy
Monarch
Mission MountainScoundrels are predictable, but you're a man of honor and that frightens me.
Robert Heinlein, Glory Road.
-
On 2005-10-18 14:43:00, Anonymous wrote:
At any rate, from my own personal experience, here are some programs I know to be very good:
Spring Creek
Explorations
Montana Academy
Monarch
Mission Mountain
Wow, you have personal experience at all those programs for troubled parents? My condolances! You must have had some thoroughly messed up parents.
That which does not kill you can make you stronger, but I really never needed to be this strong.
Scott Wagner
-
There is one in Conneticut which I forgot the name and in Massachusetts "Swift River Academy" is good.
-
Swift River
What's so good about it?First management had plans and then strategic plans. Now we have vision, and we're only one small step from hallucination.
-- Ansley Throckmorton upon assuming the presidency of Bangor Theological Seminary in Bangor, Main per Information World 8-4-`97
-
"Wow, you have personal experience at all those programs for troubled parents? My condolances! You must have had some thoroughly messed up parents."
:rofl:
Thanks for the sympathy. My parents? Yeah, early on they were "non-working," to use program speak. Later, that changed. I graduated from a program many years ago, and I have had a child attend a wilderness program--very successfully--but I have also worked at programs and taught at a local high school attended by program kids.
-
How much do you make for referals?
The Mann family was only one of a host of influential voices being raised against the traditional reading instructions in the most literate nation on earth.
John Taylor Gatto
-
On 2005-10-18 16:02:00, Antigen wrote:
"Swift River
What's so good about it?First management had plans and then strategic plans. Now we have vision, and we're only one small step from hallucination.
-- Ansley Throckmorton upon assuming the presidency of Bangor Theological Seminary in Bangor, Main per Information World 8-4-`97
"
It works very well for kids who are struggling at home or at risk and will respond well to a structured environment. If the child is having issues with drug dependence or violence this is not the place for him or her. I believe each school has its strengths (and Weakness). No fences, parents are involved on a weekly basis, and also in groups and one on one with counselors. They work on each childs individual needs. Massachusetts is a tough state to jump into in the midst of high school, standards are a little tougher than most and diplomas are handed out based on standardized test scores MCAS. So even though the teachers are accredited, once the school gets there (Accreditation) it will be twice as hard for out of state students to meet the requirements, although when they get get back to their own high school they will be way ahead in most cases and get their diploma with ease.
Uhm...open door policy for parents to visit. Doesnt seem to be any abuse, food is okay, well sometimes..
-
On 2005-10-18 16:15:00, Antigen wrote:
"How much do you make for referals?The Mann family was only one of a host of influential voices being raised against the traditional reading instructions in the most literate nation on earth.
John Taylor Gatto
"
Antigen -- Shame, not nice, remember you asked for the list. The parents rarely ask what type of drugs the kids are on or how high they are when the tell their horror stories about each school. Lets be fair. Being openminded doesnt mean they are getting paid.
-
Open-minded is not an attribute found on this forum.
-
On 2005-10-18 14:43:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-10-18 14:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Swift River can not be placed on the "Good School List." There are some basic standards that must be met to get on the GOOD LIST:
Accreditation
Certified Teachers
Adult Supervision: NOT supervision by PEERS
Realization that this is a "SCHOOL"--not a FAMILY...these kids already have a family.
Inclusion of all kids in all activities
Licensed by the State
So, sorry! Swift River will not do.
LIST the other schools you know that are "good."
"
I don't agree with your criteria. For instance, if all kids are included in all activities, there is nothing for others to work toward. Motivation is already a problem for most teens. Another problem: Some states don't have licensing. Does that preclude programs in those states doing a good job? And having accreditation and certified teachers: What about all the programs whose students attend public high schools?
I think your post does point up one problem: Because there are so many good ways to approach working with kids, coming up with criteria to apply across the board is tough. Maybe one question could be "Does this program do what it says it does," i.e. if it claims accreditation, it ought to have it.
Another problem that's illustrated by your post is the tendency of most of us to think we can define success for a particular kid or family. No wonder kids are confused.
For a lot of parents, success has been measured in accumulation of goods. The kids show that through their disregard for things like education, personal integrity, a commitment to good health, etc.
It might not hurt here to open your mind to other approaches, and identify things to agree on: basic safety and access to medical care; a good meds policy; close family participation and communication; clear and honest representation of program operations.
At any rate, from my own personal experience, here are some programs I know to be very good:
Spring Creek
Explorations
Montana Academy
Monarch
Mission Mountain
Anyone have some to add?
"
From someone who went to one of these 'good programs' you listed, here's a big FUCK YOU! ::fuckoff:: ::fuckoff:: ::fuckoff:: ::fuckoff:: ::fuckoff:: ::stab:: ::stab::
You are a fucking retard if you believe these are good programs. But that's a given I suppose... :wink: Must be fun living in your delusional world.
-
On 2005-10-18 19:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-10-18 14:43:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-10-18 14:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Swift River can not be placed on the "Good School List." There are some basic standards that must be met to get on the GOOD LIST:
Accreditation
Certified Teachers
Adult Supervision: NOT supervision by PEERS
Realization that this is a "SCHOOL"--not a FAMILY...these kids already have a family.
Inclusion of all kids in all activities
Licensed by the State
So, sorry! Swift River will not do.
LIST the other schools you know that are "good."
"
I don't agree with your criteria. For instance, if all kids are included in all activities, there is nothing for others to work toward. Motivation is already a problem for most teens. Another problem: Some states don't have licensing. Does that preclude programs in those states doing a good job? And having accreditation and certified teachers: What about all the programs whose students attend public high schools?
I think your post does point up one problem: Because there are so many good ways to approach working with kids, coming up with criteria to apply across the board is tough. Maybe one question could be "Does this program do what it says it does," i.e. if it claims accreditation, it ought to have it.
Another problem that's illustrated by your post is the tendency of most of us to think we can define success for a particular kid or family. No wonder kids are confused.
For a lot of parents, success has been measured in accumulation of goods. The kids show that through their disregard for things like education, personal integrity, a commitment to good health, etc.
It might not hurt here to open your mind to other approaches, and identify things to agree on: basic safety and access to medical care; a good meds policy; close family participation and communication; clear and honest representation of program operations.
At any rate, from my own personal experience, here are some programs I know to be very good:
Spring Creek
Explorations
Montana Academy
Monarch
Mission Mountain
Anyone have some to add?
"
From someone who went to one of these 'good programs' you listed, here's a big FUCK YOU! ::fuckoff:: ::fuckoff:: ::fuckoff:: ::fuckoff:: ::fuckoff:: ::stab:: ::stab::
You are a fucking retard if you believe these are good programs. But that's a given I suppose... :wink: Must be fun living in your delusional world."
Like I said- very open-minded and mature.
-
Oakley, Carlbrook, Montana Academy, Swift River- not perfect but good, solid programs.
No regular school is perfect- why do you think emotional growth schools are going to be?
-
So you expect the school to do all the work!!! Thats what is wrong with most families today, expecting the school system and day care to raise your kids for you. Sometimes the kids need to be removed from the family because the family is screwed up NOT THE KID, and the entire family needs to participate in order to effect any change.
Then make the whole family go through the required 15 months of incarceration.
Who says 15 months is the magic amount of time needed to fix a teenager?
If the family is that screwed up, (not the kid), why is the teenager the one to be punished? Incarcerate the parents in the program and put the teen in a theraputic foster home.
-
Real Simple.
Teens aren't 'perfect'. Why do parents and programs expect them to be?
If you're going to expect perfection from the teens, you should expect it of the program.
Regular schools don't charge $3-6,000 per month to 'fix' kids.
Regular schools don't assume the responsibility of parents 24/7/365.
Regular schools, while not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, have oversight and LIMITS ON THE ABUSE THEY CAN SUBJECT THE KIDS TO.
That's a good start.
-
On 2005-10-18 17:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Open-minded is not an attribute found on this forum."
I think what you mean is.. If someone isn't agreeing with you they must not have an "open" mind.
When in fact the reality of having an "open" mind is simply accepting that we won't all agree. Knowing that and still speaking your truth are the actions of someone with an "open" mind. Shutting off because people don't agree are the actions of a "closed" mind.
Debate and discussion allow us all to grow and learn. The debates here often lead to discovery of truths not previously known or accounted for.
Many of us have seen first hand what kind of potential for long term damage many types of programs will cause. Any one place with that much potetial/power to harm another can't be a good thing for anyone involved. I am proof.
my 2c
-
QUOTE: At any rate, from my own personal experience, here are some programs I know to be very good:
Spring Creek
Explorations
Montana Academy
Monarch
Mission Mountain
End Quote.
I just don't think so. Do a search here and on Google and you'll find plenty of reasons to doubt that these are good healthy wholesome programs for kids. The whole concept of kids being sent far from home for years at a time isn't good in my book. I think the better option is programs that are close to home where the child goes home each night and the entire family is involved in the therapy, not the child only. That makes everyone responsible for the problem.
Just my 2c
-
On 2005-10-17 13:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
but kids now are dealing with meth--a drug you can get addicted to the first time you use it.
If you would quit lying and spouting misleading propaganda about drugs, maybe your kids would listen to you when you warn them about the potential dangers. When you lie about drugs, your credibility on other issues goes down the drain, too. If meth was "a drug you can get addicted to the first time you use it", most US armed forces veterans would be drooling speedfreaks. Get your facts right before spouting off your inane scare stories.
-
On 2005-10-18 21:06:00, AtomicAnt wrote:
"
So you expect the school to do all the work!!! Thats what is wrong with most families today, expecting the school system and day care to raise your kids for you. Sometimes the kids need to be removed from the family because the family is screwed up NOT THE KID, and the entire family needs to participate in order to effect any change.
Then make the whole family go through the required 15 months of incarceration.
Who says 15 months is the magic amount of time needed to fix a teenager?
If the family is that screwed up, (not the kid), why is the teenager the one to be punished? Incarcerate the parents in the program and put the teen in a theraputic foster home. "
***Then make the whole family go through the required 15 months of incarceration.***
Some do make the whole family participate, If you had to separate one member from the others it makes sense for it to be the child. If the parents went away for 15 months who would pay the bills, oversee the house other kids in the family etc. most companies wouldnt allow a leave of absence for that long. Also in some states the laws prohibits a child living alone under a certain age.
***Who says 15 months is the magic amount of time needed to fix a teenager?***
Some vary because they really dont know, each child is different, some stay over 2 years.
***If the family is that screwed up, (not the kid), why is the teenager the one to be punished? Incarcerate the parents in the program and put the teen in a theraputic foster home. ***
Its more difficult to uproot the parents like I mentioned above, I cant speak to theraputic foster homes because I am not aware of them as an option. This isnt a form of punishment, its just the opposite, I think most parents agree that it isnt one member of the family that needs help but the entire family, if someone offered a better solution then separating the family most parents would jump at it.
-
On 2005-10-18 21:09:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Real Simple.
Teens aren't 'perfect'. Why do parents and programs expect them to be?
If you're going to expect perfection from the teens, you should expect it of the program.
Regular schools don't charge $3-6,000 per month to 'fix' kids.
Regular schools don't assume the responsibility of parents 24/7/365.
Regular schools, while not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, have oversight and LIMITS ON THE ABUSE THEY CAN SUBJECT THE KIDS TO.
That's a good start.
"
***If you're going to expect perfection from the teens, you should expect it of the program. ***
I check the previous posts and did not see any expectations of perfection.
***Regular schools don't charge $3-6,000 per month to 'fix' kids. ***
So what, who cares about the money, they dont make the kids earn it, would everyone be happy if it were free, dont understand that one.
***Regular schools don't assume the responsibility of parents 24/7/365.***
And they should not, a system will never work unless everyone is involved. A parent should check each program for parent involvement. If they are not involved it is a red flag.
***Regular schools, while not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, have oversight and LIMITS ON THE ABUSE THEY CAN SUBJECT THE KIDS TO.***
I cant speak for every state but the one I am from does not allow any abuse of kids, public or private. If your school advertises "LIMITED ABUSE" you should pull your kids, thats just nuts. Of all the stories I have read about not one school in the private sector have limited abuse rules. If a teacher abuses a student he/she is usually gone the next day. So I cant respond to that comment.
-
'Abuse' is a relative term dear.
Both are abusive by their very nature- they don't address kids real needs. Warehouses are just far worse, with no oversight.
-
There is no reason to argue with a program supporter. Have you ever tried debating with a religious zelout? This is about as productive as that is. They base their facts on 'belief' and faith the programs are good. They have no first hand knowledge, so why even talk to them? Especially if you yourself went to one of these programs. No reason at all... they simply enjoy fucking with teens even more than they had. Most likely because their own kid left them in the dust when they realize what an abusive fucktard their parent is.
-
On 2005-10-19 06:38:00, Anonymous wrote:
"There is no reason to argue with a program supporter. Have you ever tried debating with a religious zelout? This is about as productive as that is. They base their facts on 'belief' and faith the programs are good. They have no first hand knowledge, so why even talk to them? Especially if you yourself went to one of these programs. No reason at all... they simply enjoy fucking with teens even more than they had. Most likely because their own kid left them in the dust when they realize what an abusive fucktard their parent is. "
Now-THAT was brilliant! I think YOU are the fucktard, whatever that may be. Parents who support programs do so because the program with which they have experience has been helpful to their teen and family. You just can't stand to hear that, can you? Their relationship with their teen was salvaged and, in many cases, the teen is back home and happy with his or her life. Why would a parent "enjoy fucking with teens"? The pain and heartache of having a broken family and a teen who is in danger is beyond what you can imagine. A teen-help program is an absolute last resort. Many parents WOULD put themselves in a program if it would help. We would lay down and die for our kids if it would help. What part of this do you not get? The reason the teens who have been helped are not heard from much on this board is because they HAVE been helped and have moved on with their lives and have better things to do than wallow in their own self-pity because whatever program they went to didn't work and they are still fucked-up little shits like you guys here on the forum.
-
We would lay down and die for our kids if it would help.
You know, had you done this while your child was still young, it might have helped. :skull: :wave:
-
You just can't stand to hear that, can you?
No, it doesn't bother me. I've heard much worse from you program freaks, believe me. I've seen much worse too, that is why I laugh at what you say. As they say, ignorance is bliss... :wink:
-
Many parents WOULD put themselves in a program if it would help. We would lay down and die for our kids if it would help.
::boohoo::
:lol:
-
they are still fucked-up little shits like you guys here on the forum.
Say, you would make a great staff member, ANON. I hear WWASP is hiring. Minimum wage or less sound good? Sleeping in a shack with other staff okay? I thought it would, send me your resume ASAP. Let's get this going. You will fit in very well.
Frank A. Beans
WWASP Human Resource Director
-
On 2005-10-19 04:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-10-17 13:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
but kids now are dealing with meth--a drug you can get addicted to the first time you use it.
If you would quit lying and spouting misleading propaganda about drugs, maybe your kids would listen to you when you warn them about the potential dangers. When you lie about drugs, your credibility on other issues goes down the drain, too. If meth was "a drug you can get addicted to the first time you use it", most US armed forces veterans would be drooling speedfreaks. Get your facts right before spouting off your inane scare stories."
*** When you lie about drugs, your credibility on other issues goes down the drain, too. ***
This is too classic, to be actually used in the context of defending drug use. Do you mind if I steal this Quote for a piece I am doing?
Most people reading this quote would assume it was the parent speaking to the child (after coming home from a party or something).
But to realize this is coming from the kid (who is probably high at the time) (the camera slowly bringing the speaker into focus) speaking to his or her parent(s) is right on target with what is going on today, I love this forum.
-
I'm high. :smokin:
:wave:
and lovin' it! :tup:
-
On 2005-10-19 06:38:00, Anonymous wrote:
"There is no reason to argue with a program supporter. Have you ever tried debating with a religious zelout? This is about as productive as that is. They base their facts on 'belief' and faith the programs are good. They have no first hand knowledge, so why even talk to them? Especially if you yourself went to one of these programs. No reason at all... they simply enjoy fucking with teens even more than they had. Most likely because their own kid left them in the dust when they realize what an abusive fucktard their parent is. "
Sorry, it sounds like you had a horrorable home life, abusive parents and all. Your anger is understandable and I dont mean to minimalize your position but not all kids had to live that way. Some had great home lives other were not so great. I do agree that not all programs are good and that every kid is suited for every program, but they do exist and they do work for a great number of kids.
-
"Many parents WOULD put themselves in a program if it would help. We would lay down and die for our kids if it would help."
It's no big secret, the majority of the reason kids are fucked up is because of the parents. So, yes, go enter some kind of fucking program. As far as laying down and dying??? Well, I don't know you so I cannot say whether or not you laying down, and dying would help.
-
On 2005-10-19 10:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
""Many parents WOULD put themselves in a program if it would help. We would lay down and die for our kids if it would help."
It's no big secret, the majority of the reason kids are fucked up is because of the parents. So, yes, go enter some kind of fucking program. As far as laying down and dying??? Well, I don't know you so I cannot say whether or not you laying down, and dying would help."
Cant say I agree with the entire post or why the kids are fucked up, but atleast you admit that they ARE so we agree on that level and thats a start. So the next step is to seek help for the kid, right? Either inside the home or outside and if the parents are totally screwed up than the right choice would be outside the home, seems to be logical. Then prior to the child coming back into the home the parents should have seeked help, if needed, to straighten any problems there, before the family becomes reunited. There seems to be some common ground.
-
On 2005-10-19 10:16:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:
"http://www.wimp.com/hypnotized/
If this can't explain why they are so fucked up I don't know what will. You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot
easier.
--GW Büsh, Governor of Texas. Governing Magazine, 7/98
"
:lol: :lol: :lol:
So has anyone been hypnotized on stage like that before? I have a hard time believing it's not staged. One time at a magic show an assistant took me behind back and showed me the entire trick, then told me to sit in the audience and play along. I did. Everyone was fooled, but it kind of ruined the fun of magic shows for me now. They are all in on it!!
So tell me, is hypnotism different? That was some seriously funny shit man.
-
On 2005-10-19 10:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-10-19 10:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
""Many parents WOULD put themselves in a program if it would help. We would lay down and die for our kids if it would help."
It's no big secret, the majority of the reason kids are fucked up is because of the parents. So, yes, go enter some kind of fucking program. As far as laying down and dying??? Well, I don't know you so I cannot say whether or not you laying down, and dying would help."
Cant say I agree with the entire post or why the kids are fucked up, but atleast you admit that they ARE so we agree on that level and thats a start. So the next step is to seek help for the kid, right? Either inside the home or outside and if the parents are totally screwed up than the right choice would be outside the home, seems to be logical. Then prior to the child coming back into the home the parents should have seeked help, if needed, to straighten any problems there, before the family becomes reunited. There seems to be some common ground."
Depends on your definition of fucked up. I was at a wwasp program, and very few kids there had what I'd consider serious issues. Mostly parent over reacting to finding a small bag of pot. How does being locked up for 2 years solve that problem? What will be different when the child returns home? In my opinion it makes things worse in many cases. I agree, there are good programs out there, I went to one before I was transfered to a WWASP gulag. The program I went to was local, and accredited by the state. It was SO different than WWASP, it's not even worth comparing. Most of the programs discussed here are the bad ones, that's why the topic is limited to certain programs. Can we not criticize the bad programs just because there are good ones out there?
PS: it's not the job of anyone here to find a good program for parents, that is there job. If you can't visit a facility when you like, don't you wonder why not? There are too many red flags that cannot be ignored with WWASP programs. I also was at Provo very briefly, but my parent decided to not place me there because of the mandatory 7 days of isolation upon entry. (weird huh?) Instead I was placed at WWASP because they do a better job at fooling parents with brochures and stuff. After a few months my parent had no problem with them putting me in isolation there for not being 'real' enough in seminars. (maybe I didn't cry enough for gilcrase? I dunno.) Either way, it's been an interesting experience and I never knew these places existed before. I feel for the teens locked up in bad places, I know what it's like. You spend your days just trying to survive mentally, rather than 'getting better'. Good programs are out there, yes, but so are the bad ones. I came out of the program shell shocked. The real world was difficult to deal with, and I ended up doing worse things after than I ever did before. I can honestly say the program made things worse. Believe me, I wish I had ended up in a good program and stayed there. Why they chose to send me out of state to a WWASP program is beyond me. I think it had to due with insurance not covering me and WWASP being the most affordable program out there. I think this is a problem. INsurance needs to cover teen help in accredited facilities because all the good ones cost too much for most parents. Anyways, my 2 cents for the day.
-
That had to be the stupidest shit I have ever seen!!! What was the point of having us check that out? Let me guess, you love watching WWF, and going to monter truck shows on the weekend too, right?!!!!!! :silly:
-
Oh yeah, I wanted to add..
The 'good' facilities I got to stay at before being sent to WWASP shit-hole weren't called 'programs'. That is why I tend to say all programs are bad... it's a semantics argument I guess. The good places I was at called themselves RTC's (residential treatement centers). The reason WWASP can't call itself an RTC is because they say very plainly THEY ARE NOT TREATMENT. They are behavior modification, a very different can of worms. VERY different. I can't even explain how big a difference this is. If a teen is 'fucked up' most likely they need treatment and help instead of emotional torture, ridicule and jail time. Just a thought...
-
AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!!
-
On 2005-10-19 09:19:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-10-19 04:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-10-17 13:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
but kids now are dealing with meth--a drug you can get addicted to the first time you use it.
If you would quit lying and spouting misleading propaganda about drugs, maybe your kids would listen to you when you warn them about the potential dangers. When you lie about drugs, your credibility on other issues goes down the drain, too.
*** When you lie about drugs, your credibility on other issues goes down the drain, too. ***
This is too classic, to be actually used in the context of defending drug use. Do you mind if I steal this Quote for a piece I am doing?
Obviously, you don't know the facts to which this person refers.
You obliqued this line
"If meth was "a drug you can get addicted to the first time you use it", most US armed forces veterans would be drooling speedfreaks. Get your facts right before spouting off your inane scare stories."
Why? Do you find it troubling or maybe just plain confusing? Here, let me help you out a bit.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... click=true (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/17/1042520778665.html?oneclick=true)
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... miamithem' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/040303082X/circlofmiamithem') target='_new'>H. G. Wells
-
"Mostly parent over reacting to finding a small bag of pot."
Yeah, I'm sure that is exactly why the parents decided to spend $60K or so- because they were overreacting to a small bag of pot.
Have you killed so many brain cells that you don't remember exactly what it is that most of these kids were doing? Just the things they would ADMIT to went way beyond civility and legality. I know kids in my peer group had stolen cars, stolen money and jewelry from their parents, stolen and sold prescription drugs, got kicked out of school, had promiscuous sex (girls), eating disorders, alcohol addictions, robbed garages, stole bikes....
Get real. Whether or not you think these programs are all bad, and maybe some of them are, don't mislead yourself and others by pretending that the kids didn't need help desperately. I know I did.
-
No, you don't know that. All you know is that they said they did. Confessions derived under duress are not credible. Most of us caved in to the pressure to exagerate or even make up out of whole cloth our druggie histories. That was just the only way to get the pressure off. Given enough mental and emotional pressure, exhaustion and general disorientation, a surprising number of people come to actually believe their own lies. Fascinating stuff!
For three days after death, hair and fingernails continue to grow but phone calls taper off.
-- Johnny Carson
-
On 2005-10-19 10:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
The good places I was at called themselves RTC's (residential treatement centers).
Please explain; which places and what was good about them?Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?
--Arthur C. Clarke, author
-
Sorry, Ginger. Wrong again. I know what I did, and I know what the friends I made did, and their stories jive with what their parents and siblings disclosed in family groups. We were not coerced at all into confessing things. We didn't wind up at this school because we were leading Habitat for Humanity groups every weekend.
Admitting what we did was really not that big of a deal. In the beginning of wilderness, everyone would minimize what they had done. But it didn't take us long to get past the, "I only smoked 1 joint" stage. Being honest just wasn't that painful. Wonder why it is for you?
-
On 2005-10-19 11:47:00, Antigen wrote:
"
On 2005-10-19 09:19:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-10-19 04:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-10-17 13:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
but kids now are dealing with meth--a drug you can get addicted to the first time you use it.
If you would quit lying and spouting misleading propaganda about drugs, maybe your kids would listen to you when you warn them about the potential dangers. When you lie about drugs, your credibility on other issues goes down the drain, too.
*** When you lie about drugs, your credibility on other issues goes down the drain, too. ***
This is too classic, to be actually used in the context of defending drug use. Do you mind if I steal this Quote for a piece I am doing?
Obviously, you don't know the facts to which this person refers.
You obliqued this line
"If meth was "a drug you can get addicted to the first time you use it", most US armed forces veterans would be drooling speedfreaks. Get your facts right before spouting off your inane scare stories."
Why? Do you find it troubling or maybe just plain confusing? Here, let me help you out a bit.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... click=true (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/17/1042520778665.html?oneclick=true)
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... miamithem' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/040303082X/circlofmiamithem') target='_new'>H. G. Wells
"
Antigen -- Do you realize what you are quoting? Bush's men under fire for the use of drugs during warfare. Do you expect the military to rollover and say yeah sorry we screwed up, we will support every military guy and their families for the rest of their lives because we drugged them? You dont remember the hearings on the use of agent orange in vietnam? I am just surprised you find any of that credible. These guys could come home full fledged addicts and it would be denied for generations before they would allow anyone access to records from any Veterans hospital.
-
On 2005-10-19 14:39:00, Antigen wrote:
"No, you don't know that. All you know is that they said they did. Confessions derived under duress are not credible. Most of us caved in to the pressure to exagerate or even make up out of whole cloth our druggie histories. That was just the only way to get the pressure off. Given enough mental and emotional pressure, exhaustion and general disorientation, a surprising number of people come to actually believe their own lies. Fascinating stuff!
For three days after death, hair and fingernails continue to grow but phone calls taper off.
-- Johnny Carson
"
I was in group with the kids and talked to the parents, some kids inflated their stories a bit but that all came out over the course of the program i.e. tons of writting, life stories, talking to parents in group, confronting each other etc. it all boils off eventually exposing the truth or as close as possible to it.
-
This is just too crazy.
The program apologist states:
I know kids in my peer group had stolen cars, stolen money and jewelry from their parents, stolen and sold prescription drugs, got kicked out of school, had promiscuous sex (girls), eating disorders, alcohol addictions, robbed garages, stole bikes....
And every program out there (with the exception of those the courts favor for placement) will tell parents that they don't take 'really bad' kids, 'criminals'.
The programs' story changes with the wind.
-
On 2005-10-19 16:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
This is just too crazy.
The program apologist states:
I know kids in my peer group had stolen cars, stolen money and jewelry from their parents, stolen and sold prescription drugs, got kicked out of school, had promiscuous sex (girls), eating disorders, alcohol addictions, robbed garages, stole bikes....
And every program out there (with the exception of those the courts favor for placement) will tell parents that they don't take 'really bad' kids, 'criminals'.
The programs' story changes with the wind.
"
I think what they are saying is kids who are always in trouble with the law and/or violent. Punching out cops, using knives etc. there are schools who are not set-up for these types of kids.
-
On 2005-10-19 14:40:00, Antigen wrote:
"
On 2005-10-19 10:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
The good places I was at called themselves RTC's (residential treatement centers).
Please explain; which places and what was good about them?Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?
--Arthur C. Clarke, author
"
Those anon posts before were mine (a couple at least) Im gunna sign in because it's getting confusing.
Hmm.. I wish I could remember the exact name of the place... but it was a group home type thing run by the state. There were only 2 of us per room, we could keep personal posessions (cd player, books, magazines, etc). Parents came and visited everyday, and we had family therapy everyday. (that helped a lot) There was a real school we went to during the day, and afternoons were spent doing physical activity. In comparison WWASP programs had NO therapy, NO real school, and you all know the deal about not seeing your parents for a couple years. It wasn't helpful at all, it was a very sad time in my life. Before I get off track with the bad programs, another good one I had attended was day treatment at the local psychiatric hospital run by Sharp Hospital. You have to get your insurance to pay for that place, but man, is it well worth it. I am 100% anti-wwasp and anti-program, but I have to say, the inpatient and outpatient psychiatric care was top notch! The counselors there were awesome and really cared. Your parents came and visited everyday for an hour. You had access to a psychiatrist, therapist, and all sorts of therapy groups. The one drawback was the amount of medication they put some kids on , including me. I was so high on anti-anxiety and anti-psychotics I was in somewhat of a blur, but whatever. I wasn't doing drugs and was quite happy. Hell, if I could of stayed at that place until I turned 18 I would have, I liked it that much. These places were in san diego, CA (sharp) and Ramona, ca (rtc).
WWASP on the other hand.. don't know where to start. No help, no nothing... just 'get in line' and keep your mouth shut for months and months. The place was a shithole. It was obvious they were reeming our parents, and it made us all kind of sad. One of my friends there just received a letter from his parents saying they were mortgaging the house to keep him there longer. He knew he wasn't getting help, and he felt really bad for his parents spending all their hard earned money. It's a very sad situation for all involved with some of the bad programs, it really is.
All I can say, is in my experience, local is better. You need the parent around to really help the problem I think, it helped me out a lot.
The fucked up thing is, I could have stayed at the program in Ramona, but my dad came with all these fancy brochures from Spring Creek lodge and I thought it would be MORE FUN! LOL They had pictures of canoes, and mountains and stuff. Too bad we never got to see those. It was a prison camp... we had no freedom of movement whatsoever. Not to mention the 28 days I spent in the hobbit for not complying with the mind warping. I was old enough to know what was going on and wouldn't reveal anything juicy enough in front of the seminar group (I really had nothing.. never been molested or anything dramatic... I really had nothing to say) but that wasn't good enough, so they thought I was lying. This happened every time seminars came around.. spending 5 days straight in the hobbit fucking sucks. I still have nightmares about that place and it's been 5+years. It's scary these places still exist.
Anyways, that's some of my experience, trying to answer your question Antigen. I definitely have been through a couple 'programs' *I hesitate to call them that* that were extremely helpful. But they were in a completely differtent context than the shitholes discussed on this forum. These places were approved by my medical insurance. Spring creek wasn't. I wonder why? :wink:
-
On 2005-10-19 16:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
I was in group with the kids and talked to the parents, some kids inflated their stories a bit but that all came out over the course of the program i.e. tons of writting, life stories, talking to parents in group, confronting each other etc. it all boils off eventually exposing the truth or as close as possible to it.
Yeah, that's what we thought too. In reality, these torrid confessions grow in the telling.
Here's some irony for you. In The Seed, there was a 16yo girl who claimed to have established herself a $1000 per DAY heroin habit. This was in 1970's dollars, mind you. And she was a tiny, pettite little girl. But she was telling the kinds of stories that fed the frenzy upon which the cult thrived, so no one ever challenged it.
The irony is that the cult leader, Art Barker, used to claim that the bills to keep the Seed open ran up to.... $1000 per day. Hmm, that's about as bad a an imaginary heroin habit, isn't it? Of course, no one in attendance ever dared remark upon the coincidence.
There is so much in the bible against which every insinct of my being rebels, so much so that I regret the necessity which has compelled me to read it through from beginning to end. I do not think that the knowledge I have gained of its history and sources compensates me for the unpleasant details it has forced upon my attention.
--Helen Keller, American lecturer
-
I think I have to agree with this last post, I tried killing myself when I was at Heritage School for Girls in Provo Utah, and they sent me to a psychiatric hospital for a month, and it was a great place to be. I tried to stay there as long as I could, because atleast I didn't have someone screwing with my head. I guess it was too expensive, and in the end I was sent back to Heritage for a couple more years by my parents.
-
A phone?!? Yes I can see how that might keep a facility more in-check than what I experienced. I mean it wouldn't stop abuse from people who were just truly abusive, but atleast a Phone would have given us hope. More programs take ALL rights away, ALL. I mean ALL. Even the right to close your eyes for a long reliving break from the floresent lights. We NEVER saw the sun, except through a window, when we went to the building a little later on Sundays. Everyones skin was kinda green, malficient of necessary vitamins. We were forced to be physically ill for months and sometimes years. How could we even think properly. I just don't understand how so many places get away with it all. It's truly sad, thousands of children are dying a slow death because of programs.
-
On 2005-10-19 14:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
""Mostly parent over reacting to finding a small bag of pot."
Yeah, I'm sure that is exactly why the parents decided to spend $60K or so- because they were overreacting to a small bag of pot.
Have you killed so many brain cells that you don't remember exactly what it is that most of these kids were doing? Just the things they would ADMIT to went way beyond civility and legality. I know kids in my peer group had stolen cars, stolen money and jewelry from their parents, stolen and sold prescription drugs, got kicked out of school, had promiscuous sex (girls), eating disorders, alcohol addictions, robbed garages, stole bikes....
Get real. Whether or not you think these programs are all bad, and maybe some of them are, don't mislead yourself and others by pretending that the kids didn't need help desperately. I know I did."
Hmmm. I think I did pretty much everything on your list except for the eating disorders and the sex (I wish). I never went to a program and came out okay anyway. Wonders never cease.
-
Someone wrote about meth being addictive the first time you use it. This peaked my curiousity because they said the same thing about heroin when I was a kid. In fact, I never tried heroin for that very reason, so it was effective propaganda.
I checked into this by simply calling some doctors. They all said that NO substance is physically addictive after only a single use. Physical addiction occurs when the body builds up resistance to the substance.
A Google search pretty much confirmed this information.
Still, meth can be quickly addicting and causes permanent brain damage. Don't use it. Don't use heroin either. Both are very dangerous.
-
On 2005-10-19 21:42:00, AtomicAnt wrote:
"Someone wrote about meth being addictive the first time you use it. This peaked my curiousity because they said the same thing about heroin when I was a kid. In fact, I never tried heroin for that very reason, so it was effective propaganda.
I checked into this by simply calling some doctors. They all said that NO substance is physically addictive after only a single use. Physical addiction occurs when the body builds up resistance to the substance.
A Google search pretty much confirmed this information.
Still, meth can be quickly addicting and causes permanent brain damage. Don't use it. Don't use heroin either. Both are very dangerous."
Yes the physical addiction can take awhile, the Psychological addiction can be immediate in some cases, depending on the individual. That is where the statement was leading.
-
Look into SAN CRISTOBAL RANCH ACADEMY GOOD SCHOOL NOT abusive very nicely structered with good staff and a great director
-
Were you a student at San Cristobal, or have a child enrolled there?
-
San Cristobal Ranch Academy is a facility for young adult me ages 18-25. Seems like the "students" would have a whole lot of SAY-SO about whether or not they wanted to be there.
They have 4 phases...with phase 4 being where the students live "independently" in the town of TAOS.
Why pay a "school" for this type of experience?
Why not just outpatient care at home? Or at age 25---why not already graduated from college and living totally INDEPENDENT anyway?
-
Frankly any facility that feels that a hotline is not needed, is not a facility that needs to have open doors. <- if by that you mean closed down, I agree :grin:
What was done with the seed saved from the India Hemp last summer? It ought, all of it, to have been sewn again; that not only a stock of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raised, but to have disseminated the seed to others; as it is more valuable than the common Hemp.
George Washington, Writings of Washington, Vol. 35, pg. 72
-
Why is it necessary to use fowl language to get a point across? I am not only referring to your message, I see it often on this and other message boards.
Just curious,
Jody
-
Not necessary, apparently a preference. Why the compulsion to comment? And, why the compulsion to evaluate (judge) others. Aren't 'good' christians suppose to leave that to their father?
Warning: Lack of tolerance and rigidity could be hazardous to your health.
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... orum=22&17 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=12649&forum=22&17)
As stated in another thread, you find the forum useless and offensive.... so why you still here?
In case your mission is to rid the world (or a message board) of 'foul' language, best to resort to the Serenity Prayer. Ring a bell?
-
On 2005-11-16 21:44:00, jody wrote:
"Why is it necessary to use fowl language to get a point across? I am not only referring to your message, I see it often on this and other message boards.
Just curious,
Jody"
Because FOWL language is the only thing PARROTS understand!!! :lol:
-
bock bock bock bock bock buckOCK!
http://subservientchicken.com/ (http://subservientchicken.com/)
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: sorry... try another castle on 2006-01-14 19:13 ]
-
Why am I craving turkey?