On 2006-04-02 07:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-04-02 00:19:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-04-01 14:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-03-31 07:50:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-03-31 03:20:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-03-30 19:12:00, Anonymous wrote:
" In his letter to the Hyde-DC faculty, Joe takes his behavior and turns it into an issue about the faculty who did not express their disapproval about his behavior directly, instead of making the issue about his behavior itself. This is classic Joe Gauld. I recall once as a faculty member being blamed for Joe spending too much time on the golf course. The reason we were blamed as a faculty was because we "allowed" him to play too much golf when he was supposed to be working, instead of confronting him about it. No kidding. This took the responsibility away from Joe for his behavior. As though we really had any control over Joe, and as though if we had told him what we thought, he would have listened without turning it into a confrontation about our own attitudes."
Hey
Your post is refeshing. I saw that dynamic when I was at hyde. You take the issue and turn it back and the fact that you were not willing to devote a ton of energy into a confrontation indicates a charater flaw. I wonder how much of Joe's methods go back to this childhood and the power politics of a very strict stepfather.
I don't want to out you, but when were you there?
aka Sumner"
In spite of someone saying that Joe does not think he is above all, his letters indicate the opposite.
When our family was at Hyde he sent out a letter reprimanding parents for trying to be involved in a way which he did not find acceptable. He stated that Hyde knows best what is right for your child, and that if we didn't accept this then maybe we should find another school. He equated it with looking for another doctor if you aren't happy with the one you have. This letter shocked all of the parents at this time. It was so incredibly arrogant and sounded more like a Cult than a school.
Although Hyde has some very good elements, it is frightening to my family the hold that the school seems to have on it's followers as well as the scary attitudes of the Administrators and faculty. Please don't kill the messenger."
It dosn't don't sound like a cult. It sound like a guy that is saying, "look I have been doing this for 40 years, I know what I am doing. I am offering you my expertice. If you don't want it leave"
"
Forty years of experience and what does Hyde have to show for it? How many successes and how many failures? If there are so many success stories coming out of Hyde the last forty years, why haven't we heard about it? Where are all the alumni? There should be ten or twenty times the amount that exist. I am sorry, but I just don't see the success rate at Hyde that some of you talk about. Joe Gauld might have forty years experience in teaching, but I am not so sure he has found the "magic bullet." If I am wrong I apologize, but I sure would like to see all these successes rather than the handful that are bragged about!"
When Joe left Hyde, the school almost tanked. Lennox made the BOD an offer, put Joe back in charge and I will bail you out.
In america we use the admittitedly imperfect metric of success in the free market as benchmark of merit. Look at what hyde has done since Joe has been back:
Bath is thriving
woodstock is thriving
chartered schools in DC, Oakland and NYC
So that is the macro view, on the individual level could hyde be as bad as you say for the folks involved and be this succesful. I think not. To the first order the market rewards success at providing a commodity or service. The market is rewarding hyde therefore hyde must be succesfully providing the service it markets.
QED"
I think you're right that "the market rewards success at providing a commodity or service." The problem with your argument is that you assume that market success is the same as success defined by what's good morally, psychologically, etc.
Using your definition of success (...if it continues to exist, it must be good), then we should say that:
- high fat, fast food diets are good because they do well in the market, despite the fact that by every measure the standard high fat, fast food diet is contributing to a horrible obesity problem among Americans (especially children)
- internet child pornography is good because it is thriving in the market
and there are countless other examples
Obviously there's a demand for certain kinds of food that isn't good for people, child pornography, etc. Are you saying they ought to be promoted and made more available because of their market success?
I think Hyde has some impressive graduates. Hyde also has huge numbers of bad results that are not widely known. Many parents flock to Hyde because they're desperate and don't know about other options. Many leave once they figure out what Hyde is all about.
I think we need a more accurate measure of success at Hyde. Getting people to come through the front door isn't the way to measure success. I'd like to see real evidence of the percentange of kids who start at Hyde with serious challenges (behavior, drug, mental health problems) and actually finish. What's the completion/drop-out rate? Of those in this group who finish (and I'm not talking about the faculty and staff kids who don't have major problems), how many go to college and finish? How are they doing in life (jobs, family life, relationships, sobriety, etc.)? That would be helpful info so we can really understand whether Hyde is successful or not.
