Carlbrook

[Anonymous]

You mentioned earlier that not all of the teachers at Carlbrook were completely on board with thhe "therapeudic" side of things. What did they make of this?
Were there other parents that you came across who also had an issue with this policy?
Oz Girl

[Karass]

I agree Karen, denying him access to his education is not an acceptable 'consequence.' That's ridiculous.

As for the "natural consequences" of wilderness, I felt like my son's program used them appropriately. There was nothing contrived or done just for 'make work' sake. If a kid didn't want to contribute in some way to the cooking fire, he/she was free to eat uncooked rice. Their choice -- work for hot food, or eat cold food. Nobody is going to give a shit either way. That doesn't mean the kids who never mastered the bow-drill always ate cold uncooked food. They just had to choose to actively contribute to something that benefited the group meal. Or not.

Not putting up your shelter before a rainstorm was another obvious one. Nobody gives a shit if you want to get soaking wet. If you're too lazy or stubborn to make a small effort to stay out of the rain, that's your business.

The gear was all top notch. In fact, my son still wears the boots when we go out into nowhere, like we did yesterday for a few miles up in the mountains. The sleeping bag is the highest quality one he's ever owned and has been used on 3 camping trips since wilderness. So "natural consequences" did not extend to things like freezing at night or getting blisters from shitty boots that don't fit. Those would be very unnatural, mean-spirited consequences.

Karen earlier said something like her son thought it was "abusive, but in a good way." That's an interesting description that I think my son would agree with. By the time he was done, he really felt like the sleeping bag was optional (at least in summer) and his biggest annoyance was that the hikes were often at a slower pace than he preferred -- due to the pace of the slowest person.

The food sucked, but he feels he got all he needed. Too bad there weren't his favorite treats in each re-supply, or a nice T-bone steak, but there was a lot more than just oats, lentils and rice. So no, forced starvation was not one of the "natural consequences." Since he was already into health food, I think he adjusted to the diet a lot better than a kid who never ate anything but junk food.

[Charly]

70sPunk-  it sounds like our boys caught on to the challenge of wilderness.  I really think that is one reason my son wanted to go back in January- he felt his summer experience was a little "soft".  

I didn't get to talk to many parents whose kids were kept from attending school.  One boy wrote me through this forum who had that consequence and said he and his parents were angry about it.  My son cared about his academics more than a lot of the kids- especially since he was applying to schools with very selective admissions policies.  Being back in wilderness for 7 weeks when it was supposed to be 3 also messed up the academics, but doing the second junior year took care of all that (at the next school).

I think there was some friction between the academic faculty and the therapeutic arm of the school, which is not surprising.  I didn't know this until fairly late in the game, though.  It is a tough situation for a teacher.  First of all, it is year round teaching.  Secondly, you can't give a lot of homework because it will interfere with the therapy, groups etc.  Thirdly, you are teaching kids with different educational backgrounds and varying levels of interest/aptitude.  Also, these schools are not located in thrilling places. Many of the teachers move on after a year or two.  My son got quite close to a couple of his academic teachers, and this was sort of a lifeline for him.  He had several teachers that were quite good- and he is a tough customer since he is used to a high level of faculty.  Several were terrible.  He made up for a lot of it by reading everything he could get his hands on.  He would send me lists of books he wanted me to send.  These were usually given to him.  He got put on "bans" from books at one point, because he was reading all the time and refusing to talk and socialize.  I think socializing meant having those meetings they were supposed to schedule with each other to talk about their progress/issues.  He was OK with some of that, but would rather read.

[hanzomon4]

Well natural consequences may be good and well but it depends on the folks in charge. Many deaths at programs come from staff dismissing medical problems as "manipulation" or "attention seeking", and apparently even when doctors are present this can still happen

Ian August
Michelle Sutton
Lakeisha Brown
The last one is about a facility operated by the state government  they had doctors and everything, including the usual "you're manipulating" kind of attitude.

But yeah, natural consequences in an unnatural setting can be risky. It all depends on how staff interpret a situation.

@Charly - What are "bans"? Also your son "mentioned that the program was "abusive in a good way" - meaning physically rigorous- Now from your description he seemed to be athletic at the time. I'm curious did they give a physical or some kind of test to determine if a child is health enough to participate in the program? @Punk - same question......
 
Sorry I keep adding stuff - Do you folks know what the wilderness programs claimed to treat(not fix) Like did they accept kids with mental health issues(clinical depression, Tourette's Syndrome, Bi-polar, ADD/ADHD, OCD, ya know real mental health issues........  If so what about the program did they say, or imply, would help in treating these conditions.....

[Charly]

They did a physical at the base facility before the kids were sent into the field.  Also, if I remember correctly, we had to provide a great deal of information (20 pages or so) ahead of time.

"Bans" meant you weren't allowed to speak to a certain person or group of people.  You could also be on "bans" from an activity-like reading.  If someone felt two people were spending too much time together- usually a boy and a girl- they  might be put on "bans" with each other.  You had to completely ignore that person- not even hold a door for them.  At one point my son was on bans with all females except the most senior students at the school. There was a female version of my son there who was on bans with all the boys.  

I am not sure what all 2N would accept in terms of conditions such as clinical depression etc.  I would have to look at the website.  I do know several of the kids in my son's group had severe ADD (which made my not particularly patient son crazy).

[Karass]

Well natural consequences may be good and well but it depends on the folks in charge. Many deaths at programs come from staff dismissing medical problems as "manipulation" or "attention seeking", and apparently even when doctors are present this can still happen

Ian August
Michelle Sutton
Lakeisha Brown
The last one is about a facility operated by the state government  they had doctors and everything, including the usual "you're manipulating" kind of attitude.

But yeah, natural consequences in an unnatural setting can be risky. It all depends on how staff interpret a situation.

@Charly - What are "bans"? Also your son "mentioned that the program was "abusive in a good way" - meaning physically rigorous- Now from your description he seemed to be athletic at the time. I'm curious did they give a physical or some kind of test to determine if a child is health enough to participate in the program? @Punk - same question......
 
Sorry I keep adding stuff - Do you folks know what the wilderness programs claimed to treat(not fix) Like did they accept kids with mental health issues(clinical depression, Tourette's Syndrome, Bi-polar, ADD/ADHD, OCD, ya know real mental health issues........  If so what about the program did they say, or imply, would help in treating these conditions.....

You forgot Aaron Bacon, who was from my neck of the woods. You also don't necessarily understand or agree that a lot has changed since the days of Challenger and uncaring assholes like Steve Cartisano. You can agree or disagree with the "therapy" in "wilderness therapy" but this is way different from a tough-love bootcamp.

You are right that it depends on the people in charge. Interesting you should mention medical problems, since my son had one in his 2nd week. He was hauled out ASAP and taken to the ER at a real hospital. No small task considering how far he was from town. It turned out to be no big deal, but they treated it like a first-class emergency. Maybe they really cared, maybe they were just trying to avoid lawsuits or whatever. Either way, they definitely took care of it. Funny thing is my son had the option of staying indoors for a couple nights and eating food that was more "normal" but he refused and wanted to get back out in the field with his group right away. Some of you might say he was already brainwashed at that point. He says he was highly motivated to "make this work" or get everything out of it that he could.

My son's WC emphasizes substance abuse treatment, and the 12 steps are part of what they do. That's what he was there for and nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Were you concerned about the reading bans? It does not seem to make sense to me that any school would ban or limit such an activity. Particularly if a kid is there for misbehaving. Reading is an extremely wholesome and passive thing. i would sooner my kid read 4 books than spending that amount of time being forced to talk about his "issues" with other kids if he didnt want to.
Given that the goal is to improve negative behavour, what did the school say the benefit of such an anti intellectual stance was?

[Oz girl]

Sorry forgot to login. Above poster was me

[Anonymous]

A lot has changed since the days of

No it hasn't. Nothing's changed the fuck at all. And your constant attempts to tell advocates that they're fighting something that's gone is complete bullshit, no matter how many times you repeat it.

You don't even have a son, do you?

[Anonymous]

You don't even have a son, do you?

Yes; an adopted muldoon.  :rofl:

[Charly]

I guess at the time I wasn't upset by it and I do understand what they were trying to do.  He was totally withdrawing from the community and sort of thumbing his nose at the whole thing.  He would carry a book everywhere. At the time I wanted him to buy into the program.  We can sit here now and disagree with the "bans", but I do understand the point.  I think even at a regular school they would have done something to encourage a kid to drop the book once in awhile and engage with the community.  It just wouldn't have been done with "bans".  He didn't obey it anyway.  They took away Atlas Shrugged but he had another copy stashed.

[Charly]

Milk- he does too have a son, and he is totally correct that the two wilderness programs he and I are familiar with are not boot camps.  I agree that there is potential for harm, but the experience 70Punk and I had was that there were lots of safeguards.

[Anonymous]

Jesus you're a self-obsessed cunt. Why do we let you post here again?

[Anonymous]

Jesus you're a self-obsessed cunt. Why do we let you post here again?

I don't know, maybe because you needed a token muldoon??

[Charly]

Because some people actually wanted to engage in some discussion and exchange information instead of just being jerks.