Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry
Teen Trouble - Josh Shipp - EXPOSED
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "blombrowski" ---Whooter, point taken. However, as a fairly outspoken critic against Teen Trouble, let me try to explain the three levels of critcism that has been directed at Josh Shipp.
1. I was always of the opinion that his "sin" of sending youth to programs, particularly CCA and DRA, was the least of it and the focus on the programs he was sending youth to actualy obscured the two major issues, that actually made him a one-man caricature if the TTI
2. He presented himself as being more credentialed than he really was. At best, he could lay claim to being a peer mentor, with excellent engagement skills developed through his marketing experience and empathy built through shared life experience. Calling himself a "teen behavior expert" was a stretch. Saying he was endorsed by Harvard was an outright lie.
3. The methods he used on camera were borderline abusive, and clearly meant to confront in an effort to break youth down.
We can have a conversation about what would be effective, and I thought that for the most part the first 25-30 minutes of each episode effectively demonstrated how a parenting coach (even a relatively unqualified one) could help facilitate parent-child communication. But I'm convinced that reality-tv is a poor medium to address our concerns because drama sells, even though drama isn't conducive to good treatment.
--- End quote ---
Blombrowski, You seem to be much more informed than I am on this subject. I have seen the show and initially found it to be a great idea in that it placed a spotlight on the industry and those kids in need of help, but as I thought about it (in light of this discussion) you look at the reality shows and the people in them they all need to keep stepping it up each season, increase the drama from last season. Many are so desperate to keep it going they create their own scandals, have an affair, get pregnant, get married, get divorced, leak a sex tape etc. In Jeff’s case the networks were more than likely pushing him hard to increase the drama and he was unwilling to push any harder than he already has for the sake of ratings.
I agree with you that reality TV is a poor place to try and reach out to kids who are struggling and expect positive results or a sincere effort to focus on the kids needs vs increased ratings.
...
psy:
I think none-ya's explanation is the most likely. I find it hard to believe the guy had a genuine change of heart. Perhaps the risk of scandal had something to do with it but I find it more plausible it had to do with dismal ratings. If the ratings were good, would the guy have made the same choice? I doubt it.
none-ya:
I remember thinkin', wow whooter's got a tv show!
blombrowski:
Please share this link to the Facebook pages that I'm sure y'all are associated with:
http://www.vice.com/read/thousands-of-a ... nt-centres
There are at least four things that I think are worth taking away from this article:
1. Josh Shipp is basically unrepentant. As much as he claims to be informed and educated, he's still taking the position that his placements were safe. This doesn't surprise me. I think the most credit we can give him is that he wasn't willing to produce a television show that put kids in even more harms way for the purpose of ratings. But we don't know.
2. Josh Shipp is well suited to be part and parcel of the Troubled Teen Industry. I think he must ask himself how much good can I do and how much can I get paid to do it? While evaluating his the quality of his work through anecdote. While never stopping to think what are the unintended harms of what he's doing, or minimizing the reality of those harms by justifying how little the young people he's working with have to lose.
3. The industry still needs to make a reckoning with its Synanon-influenced past. i would like to believe that after the first Miller hearings, the Elan and FFS Truth Campaigns, the closing of Mount Bachelor, a smart businessperson would realize that the world was changing and that having food and sleep deprivation and forced exercise as part of the program milieu was bad business. But other than some writings by Tom Croke, I haven't seen anything that even reads like an excuse (i.e. well, back in the 90's CEDU was the best thing going for us since medical psychiatry wasn't effective at getting our kids to grow up fast enough, but now we know we can achieve forced maturity without torturing kids). Without the industry taking accountability for it's past actions, how can we be sure to what extent it has actually changed - so... Whooter you have the floor.
4. This isn't taken so much from the article but something I read earlier today. This was taken from an article written by a critic of the charter school field. I think it fairly well explains the difference between TTI family involvement and the kind of family involvement that we talk about in Wraparound.
I’ve attended too many meetings where polarized groups of charter and public school parents are pitted against each other in contentious, at times ugly debates over resources, facilities and priorities. This polarization has its roots, not just in clashing short-term interests and an inadequate pool of resources, but in conflicting conceptions of the role parents should play in public education. For the charter movement, parents are mainly customers seeking services with no major role in school governance or advocacy for all children. But in a system of universal public education, parents are citizens seeking rights and, collectively, the owner-managers of a fundamental public institution in a democratic society.
From what I can tell there is very little civic family involvement in the NATSAP/IECA world. Sure there are lots of parents who become educational consultants or develop non-profits to support the industry, or start their own programs, but where's the equivalent of parents who just join the school board. Who want to help the development of the industry without there being any dollar amount in it for them.
Anyways, look forward to all of your thoughts.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "blombrowski" ---................................
3. The industry still needs to make a reckoning with its Synanon-influenced past. i would like to believe that after the first Miller hearings, the Elan and FFS Truth Campaigns, the closing of Mount Bachelor, a smart businessperson would realize that the world was changing and that having food and sleep deprivation and forced exercise as part of the program milieu was bad business. But other than some writings by Tom Croke, I haven't seen anything that even reads like an excuse (i.e. well, back in the 90's CEDU was the best thing going for us since medical psychiatry wasn't effective at getting our kids to grow up fast enough, but now we know we can achieve forced maturity without torturing kids). Without the industry taking accountability for it's past actions, how can we be sure to what extent it has actually changed - so... Whooter you have the floor.
--- End quote ---
I dont see why the industry needs to dig up the past in order to be successful in the future. Every industry evolves over time. The parts that are not effective get dropped or stripped away and the elements which are effective get embellished. The needs of the children and parents change over time. Keeping a spot light on the industry and asking for studies to reflect reported successes should help to keep the industry evolving.
When I was young (and little enough) I use to sit on the dash board when we rode in the car while my sisters stood on the front seat. Now kids have to be strapped into a certified booster seat. I dont see any use in going back and arresting or reprimanding those parents, car makers or law makers for not keeping the children safe.
As long as we keep measuring the success and continuing to improve then I think we are on a good track and dont need to dwell too much on past mistakes.
...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version