Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS)
Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is that?
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Ursus" ---You reveal more than you realize in that statement. Your characterization of the reason that kids get sent to programs is one of punishment and behavior modification, plain and simple. They "just chose not to" adjust their behavior, so this is what they get.
--- End quote ---
I think it is clear to all of us. The kids choose not to adjust their behavior and/or they are not responding well to local services which are in place attempting to facilitate positive changes in the child’s behavior. Some kids refuse to work with the local people and therefore need to be helped off site. This is where the boarding schools come in. I dont see it as punishment but rather many parents have informed their children of what the next step will be if local services are not successful or if they are not willing to work together.
--- Quote ---Some kids come from abusive home situations, perpetrated by their parents, which the programs neither attempt to rehabilitate nor even address. I'm not exactly sure what behavior adjustment you think these kids should have effected to prevent their being sent to a program.
--- End quote ---
Many programs are very effective in helping kids in abusive home situations. A big step is getting them away from the home where the abuse occurs, so boarding school is a good choice in this example. The schools, I am aware of, work with the parents to change the home situation.
--- Quote ---If these programs were actually what you claim they are, surely the "non-rotten apples" would be denied admission, and kids suffering from abusive family dynamics would be directed to more appropriate venues?
--- End quote ---
The programs that I am familiar with will not accept a child who is violent and will suggest other methods/therapies to these parents. Many programs require the child to be evaluated locally prior to being admitted to better understand the childs struggles. This insures that each particular program can better insure the success of each child in their program.
--- Quote ---But ... in real life, this very rarely happens. Rather, it's a one-size-fits-all approach driven by corporate greed and tunnel-visioned ideology, where advancement is measured by confessions of wrong-doing and the ability to coerce others to do same, regardless of the verity of it all. Some programs even fraudulently market themselves as "specialty boarding schools" with some extra-special bonus perks, which include cult-like indoctrination of both the kids and their parents in LGAT seminars.
--- End quote ---
You seem to view all boarding schools as being the same. Aside from what I have read here on fornits I have never seen a one-size-fits-all approach in any of the schools. The programs provide a very individualized plan for each child. Many programs are beginning to specialize even further to focus on specific problem areas.
--- Quote ---Some kids really don't do well in that kind of environment, previous maladjusted behavior or not. Utilizing a punitive approach coupled with a milieu of 24/7 peer pressure ... breaks some kids and more or less permanently warps others. That's why one hears tales of abuse. It IS abuse, plain and simple.
--- End quote ---
I agree that programs are not effective with all children. This is why I would like to see an independent evaluation be mandatory prior to any children being accepted into a program. This would help to insure the child would be matched with the right program and that the particular child would even benefit from a long term stay. Some kids don’t do well even after many months of behavior modification and individual therapy. I don’t expect to ever see a 100% success rate but it is important to find ways to continuously improve the process.
...
Pile of Dead Kids:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---The programs that I am familiar with will not accept a child who is violent
--- End quote ---
When constructing propaganda, remember not to inadvertently include statements that lead to solutions you don't like. Here, you have given a clear option for kids trying to avoid being part of the Pile.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---The programs that I am familiar with will not accept a child who is violent
--- End quote ---
When constructing propaganda, remember not to inadvertently include statements that lead to solutions you don't like. Here, you have given a clear option for kids trying to avoid being part of the Pile.
--- End quote ---
Pile you make a good point, but,I think most kids are aware of this option. Kids know that if they start punching people out or resorting to other forms of violence then they place themselves in a different category and will have to deal with the consequences of the path they choose. If kids are not aware I think they should be told, very clearly and upfront,that violence will not be tolerated and will result in the kid being sent home (or another type of placement).
It is better for the school and the other kids if they can determine if a child would resort to violence ahead of time. It would save the parents and the program a lot of wasted effort and finances. This is another reason why a mandatory prescreening of all kids prior to acceptance would benefit not only the parents and child but also the program.
...
Antigen:
FYI, I don't usually spend much time reading responses to Whooter Goebels' trolls, either. So sorry if I missed something good.
Femanon, that IS about the best explanation I've seen. You really do have a gift for getting down to brass tacks without removing too much of the brass. I'd add one thing, though. Maybe 4 in a thousand speak out Maybe not. Seems to me most people vent a little, speak their peace and then get back to the business of living. So ya don't hear from them all the time and maybe forget they came breezing through. But they did.
There's also another even less visible contingent of folks who have reliably provided funding, promotion, recommendations and connections and help of all kinds without ever making much of a public splash. Some are concerned about their careers and/or peace and privacy in their family lives and social circles. Some are just plain shy and disinclined to speak publicly. But there are a lot of them! Enough that we don't have a lot of trouble raising funds when we're in a pinch nor finding any kind of professional talent at need.
Bottom line, I'm thinking that 1000 - 4 stat is probably just about ridiculous.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Antigen" ---FYI, I don't usually spend much time reading responses to Whooter Goebels' trolls, either. So sorry if I missed something good.
--- End quote ---
Why resort to name calling? Why do you have this need to label people who have a different opinion than your own? I don’t agree with many of your opinions but not once have I made disparaging comments against you.
If you are against “prescreening kids” or “independent evaluations” prior to placement then you should argue that point. If you feel more kids are hurt than helped by programs then argue that to.
As I thought it over I have to say that I was a little reluctant in engaging you on this topic (particularly in this thread) but I have to say that attacking posters because of their opinions is just wrong in my opinion and falls more under the definition of trolling than any of my posts do.
...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version