See above. We were talking about coerced "treatment" in a facility that the kids cannot leave, separated by distance and design, unable to write letters without being forced to write what tha facility says to, no telephone, no calls to home allowed, and no mechanism by which to report abuse.
And this is what your response is???
No, No?.We were talking about
regulation and why a business would seek it out and impose it on themselves. And someone wrote in:
Deborah wrote:
?.A program should do it because they are caring for a hundred or more kids who are not 'related' to them and subjecting them to god knows what, restricting communication with parents and the outside world.
I was indicating that restricting communication, in itself, is not abusive and sited a few examples on which I based my thoughts and conclusions. I am not excusing any practice by saying this.
Lets flip it over and take a look at it your way. Give every kids a cell phone and allow them to use it, at will, with unlimited hours, this could become abusive to other students and the teacher who are trying to listen and learn. How would this work out? Personally I would have concerns sending my child to a place that allowed this. Then if you told the kids they couldn?t use their phones during class time, this would be considered a restriction. How about a restriction disallowing a student to write a letter home while the teacher is speaking? Would this be too harsh and who is to decide?
I think there is a time and place for communication; too much access to phones/writing may be bad and too little may be bad also. But where do we draw the line? Where does it become abusive?
The school doesn?t feel it is abusive and neither do the parents so why would they seek out oversight to regulate what they do?