Its a learned language that is taught here.
That is true, and one reason why I don't use those terms. Even so, what they
described when first coming here, regardless of descriptive language used, remains constant.
Look at some of the regulars early posts and then the way they speak now.
And me?
Well. I've never met a parent whose first stop has been Fornits or any other forum allowing criticism of the industry. It's a matter of search keywords. Google "troubled teen" and see how many critical site you find. A parent doesn't end up on Fornits unless they have already contacted an ed-con, is considering a particular school, and has googled that particular school.
You avoid my question.
I did? Your question was a two parter "Why wouldn’t you recommend that parents visit strugglingteens.com so that they can see both sides of the issue? You told me that they already have this information, but how do you know?"
Part 1, why wouldnt I? because they've already seen other sites. Part 2: how do I know that? see above. I've never seen an exception to that. I wish I could intercept parents earlier, but the "troubled teen" keyword is proving elusive. In that hypothetical case, I would probably recommend parents reseach the other side, but I would not refer to any particular site as it would violate my no-referrals policy (conflict of interest, among other reasons... I can elaborate if you wish.).
That question is leading. See my point above on the effectiveness of residential treatment.
Avoided another.
Your question was leading. "Doesnt it ever bother you that a parent may come onto fornits and decide not to get help for their child and that child and family would suffer because of it?" includes the words "would suffer". Implied is that if a parent decides not to place, they and their child will suffer. I do not agree that would happen if a parent did not place (other than would naturally) and thus it could not possibly bother me. That's why your question was leading, and why I referred back to the effectiveness.
Yes, i'm aware of that. All that proves shows to me is that parents cant just look at watchlists or one organization to consider a program "safe".
Yes, the word “bad” or “Good” is very subjective each person or website has their own interpretation and they may be wrong. I remember a certain person jumping down my throat for not referring parents to isaccorp. A parent reviewing isaccorp would find it safe to send their child to FFS
Not true. ISAC is quite clear that the industry as a whole is not safe and quite clear that just because a program is not on their watchlist does not make it safe. Otherwise they woudn't need the "warning signs" and so forth to give further advice.
where fornits describes it as the worse place on the face of this planet.
If it's really that much of a big deal to you, I can call up Shelby Earnshaw and work with her to get FFS on their watchlist. Jon's testimony and another sworn statement corroborating it might be enough to do the trick (I'd have to check with Shelby and see what the deal is with that)
That is why parents seek out Educational Consultants (as they should) to guide them thru this mess.
Or into danger. You already admitted that it's impossible for a parent to know if an educational consultant is taking referral fees (kickbacks).
The better schools and programs will survive. My boss says a few good mom and pop places will be lost. But in a bad economy it cant be helped. Maybe they can get some of the bail out money.
I thought you were opposed to such goverment interference or aid? I mean... you start out on the thread talking about accountability and responsibility, yet you want government
welfare for programs? All hail the nanny state! (where it's convenient)
Michael we are on opposite sides of the fence on this issue. The only difference is I am open to the people I talk to and provide information from both sides. You tend to think you have all the answers so you withold info which goes against your thinking.
I am open to both sides of the issue but I have had the unique experience of actually being in a program. That's one thing you don't have and never could. I don't have all the answers, but I have looked at both sides and come to my
own conclusion. Whether information in the future might shift that conclusion, I can't say. I'm not a fortune teller, but I find it unlikely. I also don't withhold information from parents as you allege.
I have met educational consultants who believe, like yourself, that parents should only be given filtered information which will persuade them to have their child placed.
But that's precisely what you did with Marcy. Need we go over that again. You sent her to a few select websites (with a referral code!), attempted to scare her off fornits by implying her identity was not secure, and invited her to an "open discussion" group which, you've demonstrated is not really that open at all. You also admitted that you do not refer to ISACcorp because they have schools on their watchlist that you refer to.
I encourage parents to do their own research, but I do not refer them to specific sites. Is no me job. It's your job. What you're paid for. I'm not paid at all, and in order for parents to trust me, I can't be sending them to specific commercial (not purely informational) sites. I could be getting paid for such referrals. How would a parent know?
If you want to create a pro-industry site that is purely informational, advertises for no programs, and refers to no ed-cons. I'll refer parents there to see the "other side". Until then, I give them my "anti-sales-pitch" and encourage them to research the other side for themselves (which they, in my experience, have
already seen).
There are all sorts of issues besides just that one as to why I don't refer parents to pro-industry sites. There are legal liability issues, for instance, such as under the lanham act, where I could be sued for unfair competition (criticising one school while referring to a competitor or competing service).