Carlbrook

[E Adams]

I did not intend to comment anymore on this board but 2c, maybe I can try and clarify some things. First of all, I am just some guy that happened to have the fortune and/or misfortune (depending?) of attending RMA for 2+ yrs in the early 80's. I obtained a college degree afterwards, but not in anything REMOTELY connected to psychology or counselling. I make my living in finance and in the equity markets which means that I am in absolutely no way qualified to make any kind of even a blind stab at some sort of curriculum design for "troubled kids". I can only tell you what I observed and what I went through, how it affected me, how it influenced friends who went through the same or similar experiences that I've had, and maybe my opinion which people will no doubt disagree with (here for sure).
Second of all, I AM a parent. I have 3 children. And the short answer is No, I would not send my kids to the place I went. I would hope not to have to even consider sending them anywhere. I cannot foresee or imagine a scenario where I would. I hope I am a good enough parent that they won't have the issues I had - with authority, decisions, etc etc etc.
Well, the last 2 questions are quite large ones - and loaded. The quickest way to answer is to group them together and say that in all fairness I did get things out of the program. Most people I know also got tools or benefits out of the program. The problem is that for some people, due to whatever reasons (but valid ones I would say), the process of getting there was too great of a stress and in the end outweighed the benefit. And I think this is true. It was inefficient to put it mildly. The problem is that if a parent was willing to pay, the school was going to take them, regardless! I don't know that but it would be interesting to see how many potential "wealthy" kids were turned down or denied becasue they didn't fit the program. If you could pay, you fit - that is my feeling. I have seen every kind of turnout too, I watched the documentary (some horror stories there for sure), I've seen some people get really messed up after. It CAN be very intense, too intense, particularly if things are taken personally (which happens, legitimately). And the staff were all over the map - some meant well, some were dumb as crap, some were clinically detached, some were Hannah Arendt-described clerks, some legitimately loved the kids and wanted them to improve - but there were some who were just too far overboard or such preening idealogues that they could see nothing but a rose colored picture, and some were in it just for the money or power or whatever. There was also some weird idolization elements of the director, past directors, Mel, J Lennon, etc. It wasn't a science -- not in the hiring process certainly, not in admissions - and that was obvious. And the program wasn't always uniform. And some of the kids, frankly, were ill equipped to deal with the intensity of it all - some of the stuff was probably just wrong. For some it failed miserably, no doubt. This is due to lots of things, to educational counselors, to uneven staff, to lack of common sense on the part of facillitators, to parents in many cases, to a blind faith in some "system", or what have you. On message boards like this it is often oversimplified but many were complicit: How did some 17 yr old kid end up being "blown away" by bearded men or hiding on the side of a mtn in the first place? So no, I certainly wouldn't have done it the way it was done. So how do you give someone the beneficial tools that some kids no doubt DID receive there without shredding up the rest of them in the process - I have no idea. Maybe you can't. If you had 100 people like me no one would have cried, no one would have copped out, no one would have bought into the program at all. So it sounds contradictory: Did I get something out of it? Yes. Do I know other people who did? Yes. Would I send my kids? No way. It's just not worth the risk. If you're naturally skeptical, have a sense of humor and don't get overly swept away by torrents of emotion then the place was no terror camp. Not to say I never felt any anxiety because I did, but I also figured I could handle anything the emotionally shaky guy in my dorm could. If you are not looking at it farther out, perhaps it was terrifying. So I don't really have an answer to that but I can tell you this: 2 weeks ago someone did call me about their daughter, 14, lots of trouble, out of control, etc, and asked for my advice, what I thought about sending her to some "boarding school". My answer was a question: "Does she have an aunt?" That probably sums up how I feel about these places in general. In my PARTICULAR case, I was not traumatized and am actually glad I went. This fact is in NO way an endorsement. I hope that this is at least somewhat clear to some of the more reasonable people on this board. And please, really, I am not in the mood to argue or name calling, and I am STILL not a staff member, I am NOT compensated in ANY way for typing this (not even by aunts), and I've already gotten the picture quite clearly that I MAY be some type of "subjective" moron so.... thanks for all the love in advance. -E

[try another castle]

My answer was a question: "Does she have an aunt?"

OMG, I so wish more people would do this, and consider having the kid stay with a relative for a while, like they used to do in the good old days. Even Maia talks about this in her book.

If I had been sent to stay with my aunt and cousins in san diego... shit.. i probably wouldnt be on this board. Simply having my cousins around probably would have calmed me down significantly.

Im not boo-hooing about it. Just thinking about how a change of scenery within the family can do a world of difference, if there is a family member willing to help.

[anythinganyone]

If you're naturally skeptical, have a sense of humor and don't get overly swept away by torrents of emotion then the place was no terror camp.

Did you consider yourself to have been completely honest (or at least, for the majority) with peers and staff.  Not an accusation, I'm just curious.  I actually concurred with most of this post, and I think some people are better equipped to deal with programs, and I do believe programs can have some benefit (though it depends on the people running it and the staff).  I can remember a particular staff member who was pretty helpful and caring and treated me like a human being.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to answer thoughtfully Adams. I guess the reason why I asked about what you would do with a kid who was in your shoes is that a lot of people who go through this system claim something to the effect of "well sure their methods were pretty fucked up or intense but so was my behavior". I am willing to accept this i some cases But this to me reflects very much the idea that a punitive approach is the best way. This approach does not really address the reasons behind the behavior which is why I beg this question.

[E Adams]

I appreciate that no one has called me any names yet and appreciate the replies. I've thought about that place and the experience more over the past weekend than I have in the previous 10 yrs and frankly I am surprised I have the opinions that I do.  
The thing about those places is that kids behavior does change THERE - superficially, and almost immediately. You adapt for the sake of survival. But that's not a "cure". Thinking about it and speaking to some friends last night it seems (and this is just and observation and not scientific) that most of the people we knew who "looked good" and got really into the program real fast were the ones who had the toughest time later.  I did the stuff, participated, but I never "bought into" the "program" - if that's sort of clear? Yes, I was honest (meaning I didn't "lie" but I also used discretion in what I would tell), I copped out in propheets, I ran and cried in the I&Me, etc.  But I never flung myself into the deep end like a lot of folks did and I knew it was weird. I knew that sort of stuff wasn't going to happen when I got out. I looked at it like an experience, not as a lifestyle or a philosophy. I think some did. Some tried to fit into that box. I don't know if that's clear but it's hard to explain 2 rather intense years in a paragraph, especially if you type like I do.
There were heroin addicts in my peer group for instance, guys who came cuffed from CYA, mohawks and safety pins and a girl busted out of a drug flop house. They were not doing well before they came. By the end of my stay the kids were getting younger and less "bad".  Some you had to wonder: Why are they HERE?? I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me that you don't need to yell the same things at a 14 yr old cute preppy girl who snuck out of her house in a small town in TX and drank her dad's wine that you would to a 19 yr junkie who had lived on the street. The distinction was occasionally blurred. Lines were crossed, a lack of common sense often prevailed. I had problems with that sort of thing. And the hypocrisy.  You didn't talk about it but you needed to notice it.
One thing I liked about the place was that the "students" were, for the most part, very bright. They were of above avg intelligence, from varied backgrounds - and very interesting.
And about punishment - nothing was "called" punishment except for maybe Wd's and fulltimes. I guess, yes, the bottom line is that I think some people were better equipped to handle it and some weren't. As a kid you could even see that. But the distinction wasn't made, not by staff or admissions. There was never some Eureka moment where someone said: well, you know, maybe mary shouldn't be here?
The big thing was, like a joke in my peergroup, was something the staff would tell us in raps - if we were defiant or rebellious or wanting to leave or whatever it was: "If you leave! You'll be DEAD in 5 YEARS!!"  And the guy next to you, and you can tell, he's thinking: What? For getting kicked out of Country Day School??
Some of that was absurd. It was just never tempered.  Shotguns to kill fleas.

[try another castle]

You adapt for the sake of survival.

word.

By the end of my stay the kids were getting younger and less "bad".

Yes, excellent observation. By the time I was there, most everyone fit into the "hysterical parents sent me here" category, but the people who were at CEDU at its beginnings and through the 70s were more often than not hard core junkies, homeless, and most (at the beginning) were actually adults, same as the people who began going to synanon (then it got full blown culty and had families and square gamers there). Mel then realized what a cash cow he had on his hands and opened up the RS  high school.

Not to say punitive techniques and overall new agey dogma would help the original clientelle, but it's harshness was a result of a backlash to the whole hippie movement.

Which proves my point that I have maintained all along... hippies ruin everything.

[Anonymous]

I've been following this thread the last couple of days. I was at RMA for about 1.5 years in the early 80s. Arrived after E Adams and left for the next option, a mental hospital, while facing yet another fulltime (my parents considered Provo too). I've been thinking about how parents come here on Fornits to get information. I've actually been thinking about this since I went to RMA, well, probably way before that, when my relationship with my parents deteriorated. (BTW, now it's fine. We all grew up.) And now that I have my own kids, and a husband to parent with, the picture has only become more nuanced.

This is what I would say to those parents. I don't envy them.

Mostly, parents aren't looking at an emotional growth/behavior modification program for their child unless they feel there has been a significant breach of some sort. If you are a parent on the Fornits site, you are likely getting to the end of your proverbial rope. You have exhausted the parenting tools you have. You are discouraged, heartbroken, pissed off and tired. And you want your kid to be/feel/behave better, and you want some time for your other kids, and you want a little peace. Now, not all parents start out with the same tools. My patience may be your permissiveness - for all sorts of things from attention to school work, to drugs, to sexual activity. You may not understand your child. For a whole host of reasons. You may have  personalities that clash.  And you are trying to balance a whole family's interests. There are vastly different ideas of what (un)acceptable behavior is. Hence entry into programs from a kid that is sent away for breaking into daddy's wine cellar, to the addict that is kidnapped and transported to a program from living on the street.  So I would say: does your kid get a choice? Even if it's between two programs - do they have any ownership of the ultimate decision? Make sure they know you love them. Are you sure they know that? And I agree, if you don't alraedy feel way past this point, it's worth trying something like the aunt approach first. A little distance can do wonders.

[try another castle]

There are vastly different ideas of what (un)acceptable behavior is. Hence entry into programs from a kid that is sent away for breaking into daddy's wine cellar, to the addict that is kidnapped and transported to a program from living on the street. So I would say: does your kid get a choice? Even if it's between two programs - do they have any ownership of the ultimate decision? Make sure they know you love them. Are you sure they know that? And I agree, if you don't alraedy feel way past this point, it's worth trying something like the aunt approach first. A little distance can do wonders.

word x2

And the programs provide what seems like a one solution fits all approach. Is  your kid a junkie with a record? We're perfect. Is your kid suffering from depression and his grades are slipping? Try us. Is your kid a flaming queen and into wicca? We'll whip him into shape.

Also excellent point about the ownership question. When my parents decided to place me for the first time, I had a say, and I ended up at a childrens home which was, for the most part, pretty cool. The second time? Well, it started out that way, but good ol CEDU explained to them that the only way to get me up there was either by deception or a big fat guy who kinda looked like baby huey knocking on my bedroom door at 5am.

So, yes. BIG FAT RED FLAG, if the place tells you to deceive your child or not keep them in the loop.

[Anonymous]

I accept that these places are more traumatic for some kids than others.  I also accept that some kids straighten out from sheer fear of going back. (although many say they didnt)Lets face it if you are a 17 year old stoner who does six months there & your parents are genuinely sympathetic when you tell them it didnt help, you are going to be a lot less damaged & more philosophical about it than if you went in for something minor at 14 and were locked away for your entire childhood. But even if you are the older badder and less damaged kid and it did straighten out some of your worst behaviors do you think it is wise for a western democracy to allow families to lock up their more difficult family members? Does the idea of compulsory incarceration (even in a nice jail) without being convicted of a crime worry you?

I can also see how if the approach were not punitive or one size fits all some kids would benefit from some activities that these schools have. I remember an episode of British brat camp with a really smart & insightful kid with an apparently hardcore love of drugs. Her mother wrote her a letter pointing out the effect of her behavior when she is stoned on the family. She made particular reference to the girls many petty legal issues. It did get her thinking. But then like everything they did they took it to a fucked up humiliating extreme & forced her to read it to the other girls until she was a blubbering mess. Moreover another girl got a similar letter about the effect her uncontrollable mental illnes had on the mother. SHe too was forced to humiliate herself & read it publically. The idea of shaming a kid with a bonafide mental illness seemed as stupid to me as yelling at someone for having cancer. But even the kid that made a breakthrough and who had misbehaved did so before they forced her to publically embarrass herself, so it seemed it was a totally unneccesary extra step designed to serve no other purpose than to make her feel like shit.

I also appreciate for many families it is a grave and difficult decision. I also think some are shallow & rich enough to hide the embarrasing kid in a gulag the way most of us throw an ugly clock into the closet. But whether it is the rich asshole or the despearate parent looking for help, it seems to me that in the west we are becoming such a convenience culture that when anyone or think becomes a burden we throw money at it and look the other way.

[E Adams]

2 cents - I will try and be as clear as I can about it, with the certain understanding that some had a different experience than I had (some bad and I will not deny that), but for me and for the vast majority of the people that I know and still speak to that went through the exact same thing that I did, it was not viewed as a torture chamber, gulag, prison, etc. And the people I talk to are largely happy and I would say more successful than most. While it is true that I did not voluntarily go there, and while it is true that I was yelled at and that I moved rocks up hills and down hills, and saw a lot of really "weird" things, I did not feel like I was in any way being tortured. In fact, I laughed while I was there, I had fun, I ate healthy and exercised, I made friendships that have lasted 25+ years, I learned things that I still find value in today. I also disagreed with many things however. I will grant you, it was not perfect, and as I've already stated I would not send my children there today (if it even still existed). But the fact is, when I see people like "Guest" (in particular) ranting about something that is in no way (not in the details or even in the most general sense) at all even remotely like the "program" that I went through I must say that it is a bit baffling. But 2 cents, I would agree with this, that many problems originated when people came to the program that were just not well suited for it - and I think the school is responsible for that, and the educational counselors are responsible for it, and I think the parents did a lackluster job in their "research".   But those type situations were not the rule while I was there. It may have become like that but it wasn't the case based on my personal experience.  
I've read some other things on this board over the past few days. TAC, psy (I believe it is?) - and I understand what they are saying, I see their side of it, I sense sincerity, I see a point. In fact, I would probably, if we sat down in a room and just talked, get along with them marvelously and vice versa. We would disagree on things certainly, but we could have a sensible debate on anything we disagreed about, and probably laugh at some of the more ridiculous stuff. But there are others who have taken up this sort of conspiratorial crusade and are just firing scattershot at every opinion or fact or story that doesn't jibe with their own preconceived notion. I KNEW Tim Brace. I knew DK-B, I went to CEDU first and split (no one tried to physically stop me by the way), was gone a week, went to RMA, was approximately the 30th student, lived on the campus at the same time Mel did. I did a fulltime, multiple work details, was placed on bans from virtually everyone, was "blown away", went through every propheet, 3 workshops (there was 1 additional ws my peergroup went through between the Values & Imagine - that was then discontinued). I saw many changes and trials and error and a large turnover in staff, and students (particularly early).
And then there are people like "Guest". Guest almost assuredly did NOT go to the place I went to. And yet he has a stronger opinion of it than I do - and his facts are wrong. BAD wrong in many instances. And yet "Guest" accused me of all sorts of crap and lying and gives people shameless advice and has appointed himself an authority on the subject - a subject he knows NOTHING about. Either he is lying, not who he says he is, or he NEVER went there and knows nothing about it - maybe other than some pieces of scrap he picked up here or there and is trying to make a bad quilt out of. All fabricated and simplified. And honestly, I am yet to decipher that brilliant work on "subjectivity" he composed for me. Dizzying stuff. (Off the subject a bit but I wonder if perhaps Guest isn't the "staff troll" - due to mistpealings and ynconsystuncies among other things? Well, actually, it would probably be beyond their capabilities - but if you really wanted to discredit somone's opinion you couldn't invent a better character to do it with than a guy like that.)    
Anyway, I will concede that perhaps the place changed, maybe it was COMPLETELY different after I left, maybe it became some terror gulag thought reform mind control place. But my feeling is that would have taken a lot more firepower than what they had when I was around. To a large extent the staff just weren't bright enough or capable enough or creative enough to pull that off. The ones who were (if there were any?) probably wouldn't want to. At least I would hope that would be the case?  
However I may seem here to people on the written page, I am not trying to bamboozle anyone - I am neither ugly nor dumb, I am not a great "follower", I am independent minded, a skeptic by nature, I am in a field completely unrelated to the "troubled teen industry". I am just some guy. And a parent. I have no agenda and no motivation other than the fact that over the weekend through some (perhaps fortuitous) turn of events, I found my way to this board. And I posted something solely based on the fact that one of the first things I read was from the friend of a parent asking for advice - and some "raving idiot" who had probably never even met any of the people being discussed flew off on some wild (and very unhelpful I would add) tangent about how Tim Brace was a child killing murderer and a death camp monster (paraphrased, but not far off). My next (and somewhat impulsive) act was to type a quick comment stating that from my experience that was just not the case.  
There are worse places than the one I went to. There are better ones I'm sure. I agree with many things people have posted, about secrecy and hypocricy, and I agree that it affected people differently, but if there is a thing that I am really incensed about its by the places that care more about a $ than the kid. There are lots of them.
As a parent, and perhaps something closer to me at this point, is the complete degeneracy and crap in our public  system. And I FULLY agree with TAC's comment on hippies -- just as an aside.

[Anonymous]

Ok so the word gulag is strong and loaded  but prison is not. Regardless of the experience and whether it worked or not if a person is at a place that limits visitors and does not allow students to leave at all or go home for summer or the major holidays and it monitors incoming and outgoing communication then it is incarcerating them not educating them. I cant comment on whether being incarcerated saved you but by any objective measure I could argue that you were jailed.
As to the fact that you ended up being financially sucessful, I am glad. As there have been few long term studies and those that have existed have had an extremely small participation rate I also cant comment on whether you are the norm. But given that to afford the fees your own family would have had to earn a comfortable salary I would say you are part of a wider statistical norm. Most middle class parents produce middle class kids.

[Anonymous]

An interesting aspect of the cult of fornits is watching people try to convince program alumni (oh wait, you call them survivors) they were mistreated and abused. Here's some free advice, if you have to convince someone they were abused, then it's probably safe to say they were never abused. The fornits definition of abuse is so watered down you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wasn't 'abused', program or not.

[E Adams]

HAMLET:
.....What have you, my good
friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you
to prison hither?
GUILDENSTERN:
Prison, my lord?
HAMLET:
Denmark's a prison.
ROSENCRANTZ:
Then is the world one.
HAMLET:
A goodly one; in which there are many confines,
wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' the worst.
ROSENCRANTZ:
We think not so, my lord.
HAMLET:
Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either
good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.
ROSENCRANTZ:
Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'tis too
narrow for your mind.
HAMLET:
O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count
myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad
dreams.

[Ursus]

And I FULLY agree with TAC's comment on hippies -- just as an aside.

Ah, but therapeutic communities as a modality for managing group behavior far predates the 1960s.

[E Adams]

And 2 Cents - I must say I agree with you about the 14 yo's. Even while I was there, especially near the end, there were kids coming who were around 14 - like freshmen age. That was way too young for the program (my opinion). My feeling was that the parents, if they're sending off their 14 yo, what is wrong with you people? And they weren't  "bad kids" some of them. And I wonder: what was KNOWN about the school on the outside that that could happen, how was it pitched, how informed were parents - and educational couselors? Did they get kickbacks? I was "sent" there, at least in a round about way, on a recommendation by Precilla Blake, an "educational counselor" in Atlanta. I would be VERY surprised if she had EVER been there. I am almost positive she had NOT. That seems ethically wrong, at least questionable. Many people were sent by her, many, and to both CEDU schools. She probably earned a nice living, she and her cohort LB, for shipping kids there. I wonder - what was her reward? But the school should not have accepted many of the kids who came. That's just my feeling. I know people who finished the program and THEN had to go to a regular high school for a year, or two years. I just can't imagine how effed up that would have been. So I agree with you. Luckily, despite the fact I had a 10th grade education (almost - and no academics while there) I was able, due to a high SAT's (thanks in NO part to my education from ID) get into pretty much every place I applied - hell, I was even offered academic scholarships. That was true for several in my peergroup, but I believe it did tail off markedly later on. But the age thing, and the people accepted, that was just something that was hard to ignore. And I would certainly agree that it was a HUGE negative for the "program" - AND for those kids. I don't know where the hammer should fall on that, but on someone (Admissions, owner, Edu Counselors, Parents, etc). So several someones probably. There were exceptions though even to that - a girl in my peergroup for instance, very bright, 14 when she came, had only finished most of 8th grade before she got there, and went straight to college right out of the place - think she made a 1200 or so on the SAT and don't think she suffered at all due the lack of academics (nor did I, nor did MOST others I graduated with - that I kept up with anyway). In fact, when I was there I was under the impression that that was pretty much a prerequisite, that you had to be bright and/or academically prepared for college before you arrived -- but maybe not?). If that was the case it assuredly changed. Anyway, I've heard other people talk about the "poor" academics (understatement) but my math credits consisted of me and a dude from Orange County building a f**king hay feeder (it had angles in it). And I have no clue where my English credits came from. History credit came from (I suppose?) Ishi - or maybe the L&C Expedition? So perhaps it was some kind of greediness and bald money grab that followed the taking EVERYONE paradigm shift that ended up in the final analysis taking it all down, folding the joint up -- but I couldn't say other than that bit of speculation.        

And I meant I agree with the "hippies" comment, generally - as an aside - in a manner not necessarily relating to the general conversation - not as relates to therapy or any of that business ---- just as an overall comment.