I want to thank you, very much, for your thoughtful, articulate and perceptive observations. Like you, I have been reading this web site cautiously and with some skepticism. I am now convinced that there are quite a few very responsible people posting here who have lots to say about their dreadful, painful, or whatever experiences at Hyde. Yes, there is some chaff among the wheat here, but that's to be expected in such a public forum where anyone can participate. I'm very, very impressed by the growing number of people who have important things to say about Hyde, nearly all of them negative (at least that's my impression).
What seems to be happening here is that a critical mass of people is beginning to speak out about their Hyde experience in a way that wasn't possible when our kids were there. Many of us suffered in deep and painful silence as we groped our way through Hyde for the 1-2-3 years we were there. This web site seems to be unleashing lots of pent-up feeling and emotion about Hyde. Finally, there's a place to share this, and this seems to be a safe place. This is a very important development, and I suspect that Hyde is suffering from this exposure.
As you said, this is very cathartic. While I was suffering at Hyde, and as I witnessed all manner of unconscionable abuses and inept staff, I fantasized about exposing Hyde. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that this kind of outlet might be available. I'm glad to have discovered this.
Thank you for those words of encouragement. I have two questions for you. How is it possible to "read this web site cautiously and with some skepticism" and at the same time to "suffer in deep and painful silence" at Hyde?
My other question is: How is it possible to "witness all manner of unconscionable abuses and inept staff" while "fantasizing about exposing Hyde" and at the same time to reenroll your child there for 1-2-3 years?
Forgive me if I'm prying, but I'm truly curious to know how you resolved these apparent contradictions.
Mike
Mike: Your questions are reasonable (I wrote the post you're asking about). Regarding your first question, the caution and skepticism to which I refer have nothing to do with the validity of many postings here. I've never questioned the thoughtful, passionate, insightful, sincere comments. My reasons for caution and skepticism had only to do with my paranoia about Hyde. When I first discovered this site I wondered who was posting here, whether Hyde was snooping and setting up Hyde's fans to post positive comments (I now see that there are virtually no positive Hyde comments), and I was concerned about some snide and immature, provocative, occasionally obscene comments. That's all. This site now seems to have evolved and the vast majority of the postings are constructive. I hope that clarifies my comment about caution and skepticism.
Regarding your second question, we did not keep our child at Hyde for 3 years. When I referred to staying at Hyde for 1-2-3 years, I was merely referring to the range of experiences among those posting here. As soon as we realized how pathological Hyde's environment is, and how damaging it is for many Hyde students and parents, we began searching for a new school. I cannot begin to tell you what a breath of fresh air our child's post-Hyde school has been. It's a dream come true, and it puts Hyde to shame. We deeply regret that we ever set foot on Hyde's campus. Seeing what's possible at a school that is professionally run by skilled, insightful, supportive (and not naive) administrators and teachers is inspiring and gives me hope. I've learned that there are wonderful schools for kids who struggle, horrible schools (I put Hyde in this category), and schools that are "mixed bags" (with impressive strengths and nontrivial limitations). The challenge, I think, is finding a principled, skilled educational consultant who knows to stay away from Hyde and is very well informed and willing to look for one of the really good schools that are out there. Like schools, educational consultants are a mixed group; some are wonderfully skilled and some are not.
I thought that you were using the royal we, but I just wanted to make sure. As for Hyde snooping, they probably are! I wish we could get a dialogue going with them, but it seems they are not ready to recognize us and/or they are not up to the debate. This merely demonstrates the need to take our grievances to a more public forum, such as the one Gary is proposing. Thanks for your clarifications.
Mike
I agree with you, Mike. What Gary is proposing is the way to do this. It also makes sense for people to share their opinions on the other sites that have been mentioned in several posts: sending comments to NEASC (they accredit Hyde) and posting comments on the editorial page of the Woodbury struggling teens web site (
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/let ... index.html) and sending comments to the ISAC site:
http://www.isaccorp.org/These can be very effective.
Here's my guess as to Hyde's strategy with regard to this web site: By now they must know about this site and are very concerned about the bad publicity. Perhaps they've decided not to acknowledge the site as a way to downplay its significance (if you claim you don't hear the tree falling in the forest, you can say it doesn't exist . . .). They realize there's little to be gained (for Hyde) by entering into a debate or dialogue on this public site--too much PR risk. I can't imagine someone at Hyde isn't monitoring this site fairly regularly (staff, HAPA parent, etc.).
So, I imagine they've decided to observe this web site from afar, stay quiet about it, and bite their fingernails while they watch Hyde's public flogging, hoping that this doesn't hurt enrollments too much. I guess you could say that Hyde is getting a taste of its own medicine.
I can't be sure of any of this, but that's my bet. By the way, I imagine this publicity IS hurting Hyde's enrollments, as is the greater visibility of this site on Google.
