Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group
Academy at Swift River - Split from TTI
RobertBruce:
No, they weren't required seven years ago thanks to the 30% law. If however they currently have a student population where 30% or higher is special needs then they are required to be overseen by the OCCS. Since that time the definition of special needs has become much broader.
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---This is the most accurate information available. Until someone offers proof that the events in the article didn't happen or that the reporter was lying, it's what we'll go with.
I know it gets TheWho bent out of shape to be proven wrong on this but I never thought he'd go off the deep end editing out key parts of the regs to hide them because ASR is in violation. Ha,Ha,Ha...that's just too funny when he does things like that just to push an agenda.
But these facts won't go away. ASR has been cited in violation of at least two laws. I think we've established that beyond doubt and everyone is comfortable with it here.
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---It was an article writtem by Stepanie Kraft for the Valley Advocate. It's archived on cafety.org.
So this is where we're at until someone can show otherwise:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---Ha,Ha,Ha... I'm not going to do your busy work. If you have documents that show otherwise, post them.
We have already established these facts and I think everyone is comfortable with where we're at in this debate:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---[/u]"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."[/u]
--- End quote ---
Sorry, Who, but these are the facts. I guess you can take it up with OCCS and investigator Lieberman and try to change the records Ha,Ha,Ha...
--- End quote ---
I know you get mad mad about this, Who, but you can't change history and the state's records to suit your agenda...Ha,Ha,Ha. You'll have to take this up with the state if you don't like their ruling, not fornits! Do your own work, I'm not going to do it for you. Ha,Ha, Ha...
--- End quote ---
If someone was a convicted rapist, would you not believe rape was against the law unless someone posted the actual law that says it is? That's absurd.
The fact that ASR was cited by state officials for breaking the law is ipso facto proof that the law exists.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
This is the most direct source we have stating the facts about the state's inspection of ASR resulting in at least two citations for violating the law.
I think we're all comfortable with the state's findings and the journalist's accurate reporting of it. We all agree.
So this is where we're at until we see some proof that the journalist was lying about the state's two citations.
I know certain people would like to say that the reporter was lying in the article, but they'll have to take it up with her or the state. We have established that these events took place and that the record is clear.
--- End quote ---
Let's move on... As soon as Who talks with the reporter and establishes that she was lying about the content of the article we will revisit. Time to move on to other items.
This has been fun, Ha,Ha,Ha...just kidding.[/quote]
I believe we have established that fact that ASR was cited for multiple violations. We're all in agreement on this. There were allegations by an employee which were substantiated through an investigation by Mr. Lieberman from OCCS, and the resultant citations for violating the law.
See, that wasn't so hard. Ha,Ha,Ha... ASR has a "criminal record" and seems by all accounts to be recidivating. If you don't agree with the state's findings, you'll have to take it up with the state, not a messageboard!
hanzomon4:
--- Quote from: ""Deborah"" ---Who, dude, the horse is dead, stop beatin it.
The issue of licensing and 'special needs' was hashed to death in this thread:
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 666#248666
From that thread:
A Group Care Program is a program or facility that provides care and custody for one or more children by anyone other than a relative by blood, marriage or adoption on a regular 24-hour a day, residential basis.
Group care program includes private residential schools that provide to children with special needs in which children with special needs constitute 30% or more of the school?s population.
Special Services are any services provided to children with special needs by a private residential school that are special education services similar to those referred to at 603 CMR 18.05(3)(a) and (b); or
I'd say that they do need to be licensed per the definition of special needs children.
--- End quote ---
Deborah:
--- Quote from: ""RobertBruce"" ---No, they weren't required seven years ago thanks to the 30% law. If however they currently have a student population where 30% or higher is special needs then they are required to be overseen by the OCCS. Since that time the definition of special needs has become much broader.
--- End quote ---
RB, he's attempting to distract with the 30% issue. Read the regs carefully.
Group care program includes but is not limited to:
*private residential schools that provide special services to children with special needs in which children with special needs constitute 30% or more of the school?s population; and
*group residences or group homes.
RobertBruce:
Deb check your PM's.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version