Needs help: Is Aspen conduction behavior modification

[Covergaard]

As you can see on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspen_Education_Group

we are debating about the fact that Aspen Education group conducts behavior modification rather than normal education.

The definition of the term behavior modification can be seen here.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior_modification

Behavior modification is a technique of altering an individual's behaviors and reactions to stimuli through positive and negative reinforcement of adaptive behavior and/or the extinction of maladaptive behavior through positive and negative punishment.

Does Aspen meet the criteria for the use of behavior modification the organisation?

Please state your opinion on the talk page or here.

[nimdA]

Opinions are like assholes.. Everyone has at least one. ...Show us the hard data.

[hanzomon4]

Yes they use a rewards/consequence system, I recall seeing this on one of their websites(I'll look for it) Also in the ASR book the system was describe as an "agreement" or a "contract"(i forget which) to avoid the use of the term punishments/consequences.

If you can... checkout the book from a library, don't buy it. It has some information that may prove useful to you. Also checkout psy's website to get a clearer view of the cedu model of which aspen programs are based.

[hanzomon4]

Here's the link to the Aspen site, I added this to the talk page.

[Anonymous]

They perform normal education in the classroom, and some of the therapy is behavior modification - as is ALL therapy, which is the POINT of therapy.

Wikipedia loved your Aspen notes, huh?

Which one in Dumb and Dumber were you?

Bwahaha....

[Deborah]

Being sent away and having contact with your parents/family severed is the ultimate punishment. Having rights called privileges is punishment. Lacking any real skill to help kids restore their passion for life, to motivate or inspire them, they use outdated methods and techniques to force the appearance of change. They reach them how to 'act' rather than to 'be' at peace. All they can do is argue semantics. Every aspect of the program is BM, and too heavy on the punishment. Getting to use condiments or eat hot food is not a reward, unless you first deprive the hell out of someone. This is not a shread of independent, unbiased, evidence to show these programs are beneficial.
BTW, rules are called 'agreements', as if these kids 'agreed' to anything, or were even asked to agree. Talk about your manipulating mind fuck games.  The programs are worse than the kids ever thought of being. Same in all the CEDU knock-offs.
Kids typically are required to sign a 'contract' before they can leave the campus, detailing what they can/can't do.

http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=53849#53849
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=61374#61374
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=225152#225152

[TheWho]

I strongly disagree on this one; you have taken an unpopular viewpoint based on antiquated stories.   We can all sit here and argue whether rules are agreements or signing a contract is good or bad, how much BM is too much etc.  The bottom line is that many of these programs are extremely effective in keeping a child safe and getting them back on their path in life which is what these programs are all about.  Learning to start a fire before you can have a hot meal isn’t abusive.  Cold meals are just as good for you and as nutritious, hiking thru the woods, setting up your own shelter builds self esteem which is lacking in many children who attend these programs.

It is priceless to see the looks on these kids faces when they start their own fire using flint and dried bark and then proceed to cook a meal…just isn’t something you can easily accomplish thru local services.

The programs of a decade ago are mostly gone and the programs of today greatly outpace those of a year ago.  These programs are evolving and building everyday as they incorporate new ideas based on recent studies and parents feed back as they continuously strive to increase effectiveness.

[RobertBruce]

The bottom line is that many of these programs are extremely effective

Basis?

[hanzomon4]

I strongly disagree on this one; you have taken an unpopular viewpoint based on antiquated stories.   We can all sit here and argue whether rules are agreements or signing a contract is good or bad, how much BM is too much etc.  The bottom line is that many of these programs are extremely effective in keeping a child safe and getting them back on their path in life which is what these programs are all about.  Learning to start a fire before you can have a hot meal isn’t abusive.  Cold meals are just as good for you and as nutritious, hiking thru the woods, setting up your own shelter builds self esteem which is lacking in many children who attend these programs.

It is priceless to see the looks on these kids faces when they start their own fire using flint and dried bark and then proceed to cook a meal…just isn’t something you can easily accomplish thru local services.

The programs of a decade ago are mostly gone and the programs of today greatly outpace those of a year ago.  These programs are evolving and building everyday as they incorporate new ideas based on recent studies and parents feed back as they continuously strive to increase effectiveness.

  ::T::  
Now come on folks that was some good spin....

Ok, kidding aside these programs are dangerous. I'm not going to wait around for a suicide or a death  before I start putting the fire to asses. I want to give survivors the chance to voice what their experience was first and far most. Most of the Aspen parents report good results or no abuse, however the students usually find somethings inappropriate and have mixed feelings. Beyond that if you start asking detailed question, and not were you "abused" or "not abused", the abusive trends of cedu shows it's ugly head.  

Parents Anonwhos and whos get your kids on here if they don't mind sharing the details of their programs. Look, I'm not saying that the word of  a parent is bullshit, but it is when you don't provide details. Some parents have given details that showed Aspen as abusive cedu style, and these parents viewed the program in a positive light.

So parents, know that some very knowledgeable old timer survivors that know what abuse is in program will pick apart your story. The reason they do this is because the details often show a program that mirrors another program that was confirmed to be abusive after years and years of denial from the program and the parents.

I have to quote School Daze to you folks "Wake up!"

[TheWho]

hanzomon4  wrote:

I'm not going to wait around for a suicide or a death before I start putting the fire to asses. [/b].

Unfortunately, you are right,  they will occur; I think it would be reckless to say all suicides/deaths can be prevented.  Suicides occur everywhere people are.  The key is to find the safest place for a child at risk…here is some recent data that shows the high level of safety in some of these programs.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=258477#258477

 

Most of the Aspen parents report good results or no abuse, however the students usually find somethings inappropriate and have mixed feelings. Beyond that if you start asking detailed question, and not were you "abused" or "not abused", the abusive trends of cedu shows it's ugly head.

As you said the parents and kids attending have not experienced nor reported abuse because they are non-abusive programs.  I am sure if you looked at the details of any story you could interpret portions of it to be abusive as could stories of a childs everyday life i.e. a child who gets Saturday detention at any public or private school and tells their story could be interpreted as isolation from their family and peers, no cell phones could construed as abusive, Sunday school could get interpreted as LGAT.  

So parents, know that some very knowledgeable old timer survivors that know what abuse is in program will pick apart your story. The reason they do this is because the details often show a program that mirrors another program that was confirmed to be abusive after years and years of denial from the program and the parents.

But what is the point if the child is back on track, doing well and moving along with his or her life and views their time in the program as non abusive, why try to convince them otherwise?

[hanzomon4]

Who, you can twist words better then most. Nice try though



 ::roflmao::

[RobertBruce]

The key is to find the safest place for a child at risk…here is some recent data that shows the high level of safety in some of these programs.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=258477#258477

Let's not pretend this is actual data.

[Deborah]

Where are the 42 deaths between 200-2004?

[Oz girl]

Rocco Magliozzi. Died prettty recently at your favourite Aspen camp Who

[TheWho]

Where are the 42 deaths between 200-2004?

Send them over, if they meet the parameters I will add them in.  Its a group effort, if someone has a name we should add it.