For Ottawa

[Deborah]

Ottawa5,
You have divulged that you went to Catholic school and attended a ?very correct and grammar-driven school?; that you come from a family or attorneys and that you are a graduate student in a psych program. These are very extremely control based environments and ideologies.  Catholics and psychologist/psychiatrists certainly have a history of ?helping? but many times not having a clue how to genuinely help. Good intentions, bad theories and methodology.

And you want to open your own school but avoid the problems inherent in them. It would matter not, if you figured out the very best method of helping teens who are not yet at peace- you could never adequately train your staff to implement the program exactly as you intend to be, because your staff will be running everything trough their own filters. Your staff will not have the life experience you have had which brought you to understand that modeling real love- respect for self and others- is the only way to reach in (or out) to someone who has been hurt by disrespect.

It isn?t complicated at all. Doesn?t require a degree. Doesn?t require incarceration or psych drugs. Just empathy and a deep desire to want to help that person overcome the hurt they have endured and/or confusion about themselves and the world that may have resulted from being treated in a disrespectful way. Which, I don?t perceive you as possessing.  It?s what people used to do, and still attempt to do, in spite of our isolated lives. It?s what we do with our best friends who have the presence of mind to not give advice, but simply listen attentively. One only has to know that if someone is not at peace, they have been hurt in some way (the majority of us, to varying degrees, including yourself). Then, if you so desire to be of assistance to that person, the only role you should take is one of helping them rediscover their self-worth and respect by continuously reinforcing the truth (contradicting the wrong messages and confusion) about themselves and their true human nature. Confrontation is not at all necessary and too often used by the ?helper? as an opportunity to vent their own frustrations. When this is the case, it is far from helpful, and detrimental to the ?client?.

I have noticed that many ex-participants of the CEDU method have told you what ?didn?t work?. That IS what you claim to be here to find out. Given your reaction to feedback from people who had negative experiences, I am led to imagine that what you?re really here to do is to open the venue for more ?success? stories to be shared. I imagine you will assume I?m paranoid. If that is the case, let me assure you I?m not. I despise psych labels, so don?t use them with me. This industry has hurt many people, despite your positive experience. It has bred, not paranoia, but skepticism in many. Their/our skepticism is justified. Labeling it paranoia is disrespectful and minimizes the blatant disrespect some of us endure in our dealings with certain ego maniacs who sought to help us or a family member.

Also, what I observe is that you always come back with a lukewarm, but somewhat defensive comment. ?Sorry that happened to you (if it really did) but it didn?t happen to my son, abuse/coercion is a matter of opinion,  etc. etc..?  Your comments, whether intentional or not, minimize others experiences, in my opinion. I don?t observe any empathy, just cold, scientific, clinical responses. If you ever hope to help anyone, you would do well to develop empathy and the ability to illicit less defensiveness in your ?clients?, and try to free yourself of the erroneous assumption of being able to ?fix? anyone. Hint- Explore your catholic and traditional roots. Matter of fact, you?d do well to stop referring to people you?re helping as ?clients? or ?patients?, but instead fellow human beings who are entrusting you to help them sort out a problem. A hierarchical relationship is not necessary. There is always a conflict of interest when someone is paying another for ?help?. It puts unnecessary pressure on the ?helper? to be the all-knowing expert, when in fact, they do not have to have all the answers, just an ability to listen attentively, point out discrepancies, and ask leading questions to help the other person arrive at THEIR OWN conclusions.

If you can?t do that with the people on this forum, how might you be successful with so-called ?defiant? teens, unless of course, you adopt the coercive methods that all programs employ. Due to the nature and set-up, it is the only way they can be ?successful? by any definition of the word. These articles should give you some insight and understanding as to why incarcerating youth in residential programs is not helpful. If the links don?t work, let me know and I?ll post the article from my files.
http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/aacp/Vol-15-3/Youth.html
http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp549755.html
http://ishmael.com/Education/Writings/rice_u_2_98.shtml

You said, ?And if I lived in a country where, say, marijuana was legal, and if AN ADULT CHILD OF MINE occasionally used it, without obsessive dependence on it or interference with living a full life, it would not be a great issue with me--although my own perspective is that there are better ways to feel good than dabbling in this kind of thing.?
This sounds controlling to me. If I were your ADULT offspring and was smoking pot LEGALLY on a REGULAR basis, and knowing how you felt,  I?m certain I wouldn?t tell you. And we would not have an authentic relationship, because I would have to keep hidden those things you didn?t agree with.  I certainly wouldn?t want to be subject to your definitions of ?obsessive dependence? or ?full life? as an adult. And as a minor, the latter could quiet conceivably drive me to the former.

And this condescending remark, which really led me to question you motive and intent: ?Somehow, perhaps it was instinct, I knew implicitly that I had a responsibility to act in my child's best interest--I am well AWARE THERE ARE SOME PARENTS WHO DO NOT SEEM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING A CHILD AND PARENT--I only know that I could never be SO UNINVOLVED OR UNINFORMED OR LAZY OR WHATEVER MAKES THEM LIKE THAT. I AM JUST GLAD I KNEW WHAT HAD TO BE DONE. AND DID IT.

?Oh my pie?, as my niece would say. For all intents and purposes, you are suggesting that a responsible parent is one who can recognize that their ?struggling teen? needs to be placed in a program. Are you paid for referrals, btw? Perhaps we can chat sometimes of how successful a parent can be if they give up their outside interests and focus on straightening out their relationships with their teen. There are many other options available that you simply haven?t imagined yet. And I must ask how sending your teen to strangers constitutes involvement? While I agree there is too much genuine ignorance in the world, to call a parent lazy is not very professional of you. Would you please provide your definition of that word, because personally I think it should be stricken from the English language. And a personal note to you- I?m guessing this comes from the catholic/traditional values that were instilled in you.

Regarding confrontational therapy. I attended an 8-day workshop in Ca a few years ago. The leader, I discovered later, was of the est ilk?VERY confrontational. One of the exercises was to get naked and tell your sexual history in front of the 16 participants while being videoed. Despite the fact that I had made an upfront agreement to the leader to cooperate with his directions, I refused to take part because in the days leading up to the exercise it became increasingly clear to me that he had not done his own work around these issues and that he was a raging sexist, and possibly had his own agenda.
Given that, I also understand where he wanted people to go with this, and I do believe there is some value in being able to speak about one?s past sexual experiences, even publicly, without shame or guilt. The method employed was all wrong. What I observed was competition to have the coolest stories, exaggerations, stories designed to please or seduce the leader, etc. Many have described it to feel contrived, because the discussion was forced and unnatural.  

My son?s experience with reals and/or raps (can?t remember which) was the same. I?ll have to ask him if he was ever required to divulge his sexual history.

I also see benefit in telling your painful stories in a group setting. Not a confrontational group, but in a group of supportive peers. In such a group, other participants would not be allowed to comment, harangue or otherwise disrespect the speaker. It would not be a chaotic, free-for-all. The listener would receive feed-back from others only if s/he so desired. The healing comes from being HEARD without judgment.  People sharing their painful experiences to a group is often cathartic, creating some healing in others, just simply by hearing another?s story. This should never, never, never be forced, under any circumstances. Period.

As for adult role models sharing their sexual experiences with teens; I also do not see anything wrong with this if the intention is appropriate and it?s done in a thoughtful way. From what I have read about it here, it was not. When peers are sharing in a group, it is comforting to hear other?s stories which, as I said, can give others ?permission? (safety) to share their own, IF THEY SO DESIRE. That is the key. Allowing them to share, if and when, they choose to do so. How it appears to me, is that the adult role models at CEDU had a covert agenda to have the teens divulge things that would be used against them over and over, to ?prove? they needed the ?help? the facility offered. That is unethical, in my opinion.

Regarding the adult male ?client? you referred to who desired to know details of your life. I would think that a person who has lost all trust, who is practically debilitated with confusion to the point of delusions, etc; could benefit from some real dialogue. Unfortunately, the ?professional paid helper? must abide by certain ethics which do not allow for such realness. Because speaking about family-of-origin dysfunctions is sooo taboo, I think people have a real need to hear that they are not unique or different in this regard- Given the human condition, we all experienced some form of dysfunction (I prefer disrespect) in our homes. Sometimes reassurance of this fact alone, can be healing.  

You made this comment, ?If the claims made by anonymous or even named posters seem really unlikely to you (for example, the whole governmental apparatus of a certain state is covering up a particular school's abuses)?? If you do not know that this not often the case, you have not done your research or are choosing to ignore the facts. Law enforcement and other government agencies love these programs. Licensing department advertise them on their websites. That is a fact, and one can not necessarily trust the local or state authorities to act with integrity in such matters.

You made this snippy remark: ?Key de-programming concept for recovering socialists: money is good, and wonderful things can be done with, especially when it is given freely, in the pursuit of a dream (as opposed to being extracted from its rightful owner by some blood-sucking government for someone else's idea of a "just" purpose).?  
I do not believe socialist believe money is bad, and would respond by saying that the key de-programming concept for recovering capitalist is:  Share the wealth- don?t let another child go to bed hungry or live without the basic necessities of life. Notice that the wealth you have amassed, you did not earn. Notice that your greed is disrespectful of yourself and others and stems from a deep fear and need to control. Notice that due to your greed, the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world had dropped to #6 in terms of quality of life.
We have no perfect model of government, past or present. And if you do not believe that government is channeling billions of dollars into pharmaceutical companies, you?re wrong.  And with Bushs? new initiative to have all US citizens screened for so-called mental illness, he will be channeling even more money their way.

I wonder if it?s ever occurred to you- in your quest to understand why a programs might appear to work for one and not another-  that it may be easier to brainwash (condition) someone who is already half-way there? A person who is already conditioned to a large degree, to defer to authority, to pursue the path that the dominant culture and/or family defines as success (education, professional career, etc). That could very well explain at least some of the apparent ?successes?

In one post, regarding brainwashing, your wrote: . Not much risk, fortunately, my PERSONALITY IS SUCH THAT PEOPLE I KNOW LAUGH WHEN I TELL THEM THAT CERTAIN POSTERS AT THIS SITE THINK THAT CEDU COULD HAVE BRAIN-WASHED ME!

And in another you wrote: There was a time when I would have been absolutely terrified to disagree with someone like you who comes on so strong. I would have been terrified, even of writing, in this pretty private way. MY "PARENT WORKSHOPS" WORK WAS WHEN THAT CHANGED THAT, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I WAS BULLIED BY SOMEONE??

Pardon me, if I?ve misperceive, but that sounds like a contradiction, and that you give credit to the workshop, not your personality, for your security and being resistant to brainwashing. I really dislike that word, and sometimes wish that advocates and survivors would come up with a more accurate term. It?s so loaded and easily arguable, even though it is quiet accurate technically speaking.

Well that will have to be it. My grandson just arrive to tell me about his camp experience.
 :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-07-25 21:43 ]

[ottawa5]

Well, I will have to look into this very long post at some time later, just checking now when the rest of the family is occupied.

I don't really know you, I don't think, but are you the mother who's child was sent to a school against her will (I don't know if it was a custody thing or what, or maybe I am thinking of something else.).  You aren't the one who won't feel she's done her job until she convinces her child that he really did have a bad experience, are you? I've looked at so many posts here, I may be confusing you with someone else.

Very, very long; you seem to have spent almost the day sifting through my posts, I don't know whether to be honored or alarmed--just glancing at your comments, I have a sense that some of your remarks are a bit simplistic, but I haven't read your very elaborate treatise in enough detail to know if you are trying to be helpful or looking for evidence to support some big theory about me that has occurred to you.

But as I say the family is here, and I have practicum tomorrow, so I will have to check in later in the week, if I have any questions/comments.

[Anonymous]

Thank you Deborah for your post.

Ottawa:
I have had a great deal of difficulty with your posts (even though I recognize you have the right to your opinion).... It seems you totally gloss over the very real negatively coercive, inappropriate, unhealthy aspects of CEDU.  The thing that was most troubling was your clinical perspective (although no real clinician that I know would ever endorse this nuthouse.)  Also, troubling is your seeming disbelief about the more outrageous incidences, which is insulting to us all who have had that experience.

You must think that everyone here is a total BSer because I don't know a single REAL parent who would have all this info and just discard it.

Ottawa,Deborah did spend time on the post but for the right reason; I truly question yours.  Although there are a lot of interesting theories out there...
--Shanlea

[ottawa5]

Well, here I was about to check Deborah's enormous work of this afternoon and I run into you!

I observe that you have seen fit to remind me that this Deborah person spent time on her lengthy (almost comically lengthy) message, but as you assure me, it was for "the right reason" (merit points for good intentions, sort of?).

What, pray, is the "right reason"? Could it be that you have fallen into the trap of assuming, without thinking about it fully, that anyone who agrees with you is "right"?  Again, I haven't had time to read her stuff carefully, but my impression is that a lot of it is sort of antiquated, non-critical "flower-child" babble, this is just from a scan of the post, it is possible  that I will find true gems of wisdom hidden in the clutter.

You also mention that you question my reasons---again?  I must say it sounds as if you just don't like my reasons, rather than being in the process of honestly questioning them.  I don't know what else to tell you, I have been as forthcoming as I can be.

If, as you say,  my "clinical" perspective is troubling to you, I wonder why that would be?  After all, I am not here for some kind of encounter group or to offer therapy, that is decidedly not my role here, I am looking for information (although I think that the Deborah post referred to the possibility of some other devious motive of mine to bring like-minded posters to the site, something that isn't even on my radar screen but I'm sure that this declaration won't be enough to keep some around here from fantasizing).  

One more heads-up for you: I am being truthful about my motives, my point of view, my history. If you don't believe me, then there is nothing more that I can do about it. It is frustrating to go over the same ground again and again, and I have been willing to do it, but apparently no resolution comes of this willingness.

I have said it before, and I will say it once more here: I believe that some of the people posting here have had horrible experiences at the very schools where other kids have had good experiences.

I am interested in knowing why that is, what is the basis of this very different outcome, and I do not believe it is as simple as assuming that anyone who had a good experience was brain-washed. Blind adherence to such a far-fetched belief (and I say it is "far-fetched" based on how well the "good experience" people often do in all realms of life, after graduation) is at least as cultish as anything you suggest is happening within the schools in question.  

You say that I must think that everyone at this post is a "BSer" because no real parent would not accept the information provided, or, as you say, "discard" all this information, presumably something that I am doing.

Here you seem incapable of considering that I may be able to weigh the given information critically, and to consider that the reports I've heard may contain legitimate grievances, as well as complaints that are not likely to be true.  

For heaven's sake, try to be a little intellectually flexible--life is not always clear-cut, heros and villans, black and white. And why in the world would any parent base his or her interpretation of the advisability of using one of these schools, on this one site and accept what is expressed here unquestioningly?

Sensible people make their decisions based on multiple sources of information, which may not be comfortable for those who are fearful of ambiguity, but, in my experience at least, this approach leads to the best results.

I am sorry if I sound impatient with your post, but your obtuseness about my intent is making me feel impatient. So I will probably move on for the moment in address Deborah's massive undertaking later.

[Deborah]

Ottawa,
No rush. And no need to worry with whether to feel honored OR alarmed. We're all just having diaglogue here. I frequently write long posts, especially when I'm playing catch up in a conversation. As I recall a few of yours were quite lengthy too.

In the interest of mutual understanding, I'd like to know what you mean when you use the word 'simplistic' to describe others ideas and opinions.

I don't consider my post to be an elaborate treatise, just providing some feedback that you say you are interested in. And, perhaps some that you might not be so interested in. Some may even feel a bit confrontational, but that's a good thing, isn't it?

I have no BIG theory about you. Rather a more simplistic theory, which I have presented as simply and as honestly as I could- my imaginings and concerns, and thoughts on why programs don't work in general, particularly the methods used.

Take what seems useful, if anything, and leave the rest.

[former CEDU therapist]

[Anonymous]

Ottawa, when I said your approach was clinical, I meant as opposed to humanistic. I meantyour answers treated us like our experiences were fanciful... It is simply so strange to me the way you gloss over some heavy stuff.  

In addition, you come off as quite superior in your tone, definitely not the worst insult, considering the abusive posts I've seen by others.

Work with me here. If CEDU is really all that and a bag of chips, then what specifically did you find helpful?  Specifically. If you would be willing, give me some perspective here. Concisely shared points.  Listing. I will try to be open and honest when I read them, but for me, it would be helpful.  Another chick who told me CEDU saved her even though she's been a junkie for years afterward could not tell the positive aspects of CEDU and I really wanted her perspective; hope you'll give it. I can honestly say that it probably won't change my perspective of raps/propheets, and the general insularity, but could at least enlighhten me.

Thank you.

PS THe last line about your motives, just wipe 'em.  I wrote it, rethought it, didn't delete it, but should have.

PPS: This is not a joke: If you really found CEDU valuable, then why don't you work at a CEDU facility?

[Anonymous]

Did you know Jim Johnson, Laurie Saunders, Pam and MArk Williams, the Kim Browns?

[CEDU IS A CULT]

It's so very easy to bring out the true bitch in ottawa.

[ottawa5]

A few points, as you requested:

1)I don't know if your background is in psychology, so whether we mean the same things when using terms like "clinical" or "humanistic" is an open question. I think you have to be both, personally, and able to understand the difference.  When I am with clients, I relate to them, humanistically, as human beings, but also observe them as a clinician--that is the best way to help, in my view. Again, it takes a certain flexibility and comfort with ambiguity to accomplish this.

What I guess you are not understanding in the same way that I do is that the people at this site are not clients of mine, they are individuals telling stories that I have been interested in, but not in a therapy-related way.

It is true, it must be said, that some of the stories may be fanciful, this happens all the time, people who either intentionally or unintentionally distort their experiences, often to put themselves in a better light. Other stories may be completely true and I have to make a judgment call on what to believe, based on my own observations about the post---is he or she consistent, rational, believable?

2) As to the superiority issue, you would be better situated than I am to explain why you think of me as having a tone that is superior.  I will say that, on reflection, when I have thought that someone else is acting superior, it is often something that is going on in me, rathe than with the other person--so you might look inward for your answers.

Or it may, in this case, be something as simple as my tendency to use precise English, perhaps this is off-putting to you if you are not used to it.

Another reason that you may have such feelings about me is that I will not let other people push me around. And I don't care that much what some poster, or even a whole bunch of posters, think of me, why should I? My involvement with this site is just a small sliver of my life, not something that my self-worth rests upon. An information-seeking exercise.

Perhaps, also, it has to do with my ability to easily show restraint, so that if some attention-seeking clown wants to try to provoke a response from me by posting insults to me or my son or whatever, I can, without much effort, just blow it off and ignore it.  And, if the poster appears to be a real jerk, even to laugh at the fact that this must really be irritating to him, or her, to be ignored.

3) "a bag of chips, too", First Deborah and "Oh my pie" and now "chips"? What is this food-based thing about, in Freudian terms-- no, just kidding--I will try to explain very briefly why CEDU was good for me and my child.

CEDU, for me, was about the possibility of change. The experiential approach affected me very much and made it easy to let go of old ways of doing things and to consider new possibilities. To achieve that, in my parent workshops, I feel that some level of confrontation was necessary, confrontation of the old ways of interfacing with life; just sitting around and singing "Kumbayah" is really not going to cut it, if you want real change, in many, if not most, cases. But it must be confrontation in a caring, supportive, positive atmosphere, and that was my experience.

In the school, it starts by being about changing behavior, in the same caring, supportive, positive way.  At first, kids just go through the motions, mostly, they dress as they should, act as they should, for short-term rewards. Then over time, they start to see that they feel pretty good not using drugs or whatever they had been doing before,  and this, in itself, starts to make them consider that there may be a better way.

At this point, the patterns of behavior, the cues of the old life would easily lure them back, if they went home, even their own families are functioning sometimes as part of the reinforcement system for that previous life.

But over time, through life experiences at the school, and in raps and propheets, kids start to consider the possibility of changing not only how they are acting, but how they actually feel and believe, that is, their real attitude about life and themselves.

And those for whom the schools are helpful finally choose to have something different than they have had in their old lives, and ultimately, they choose to fight for a different way of being when they leave the school and return to their old environments.

Look, I realize that none of this is real to you, and I guess you can't even consider that it might be real to someone else, and as my son would say, "So what?--they're nobody to you, forget them".  

You can call it brainwashing if you wish, I call it learning that you can choose your own future. Whatever you call it, I have seen that the approach being used at CEDU can work, and I am interested in why it did not for you and for others--if only to remove impediments from that program or others helping more kids in future.

Well, my post will be as long as Deborah's still neglected entry, if I do not stop.

I have had a great day, I helped save someone's life today, and this, and the fact that the individuals who I work with find me to be caring, empathic, and helpful, means more to me that a lot of negative chatter. So I'm just going to enjoy the feeling of living my dreams, something that my parent workshop experiences facilitated, and forget this pretend/internet stuff for the evening.

See you around, and thanks for your inquiry.

P.S.: Forgot to address your last point, whether I will ever work in a CEDU school, I don't rule it out, depending on the actual, present program, but I have a few ideas that I think might improve the whole approach and reduce the possibility of harm--some of these ideas are based on what I have seen at this site--so I keep the future open. [ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-26 20:41 ]

[Deborah]

FCT,
I appreciate the apology for your profession.
Sounds like you may have taken my comments personally. It was a genralization.
I'm an ex-student of psychology. I have many close friends who are social workers, therapists, and PhDs. I consulted them many times when my son was incarcerated. They were appaled at his 'treatment'.
 
I disagree though. I do think these programs are very much about psychology, whether the 'treatment' is done by shade-tree psychologists or degreed. They all use, or should I say, misuse or abuse, BM. All staff at the facilty (emotional growth/therapeutic) my son attended were 'professionals', and he was treated very much the same, although I don't think he endured quiet as much physical abuse as some.

I've just recently been reading some at John Taylor Gatto's site about Dewey and the history of education and psychology. These programs seem to be the worst of Dewey and Skinner combined.

Take a look at this on the history of education and psychology (Wundt, Leipzig, Dewey):
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/13q.htm

And this one on discipline. It exactly describes what's happening in programs. It's as if society hasn't progressed much at all, some segments anyway.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/1e.htm

I think psychology is so much a part of the the industry, I'd like to see a forum specific to psychology/psychiatry here at Fornits. I'm sure it would be lively.

Ultimately psych and these programs are about control. Identify what is normal. Label or dxs. Incarcerate or drug. Seeing people as machines. Everyone must be productive, by their definition, etc. Good therapists may be the only saving grace in the profession. I do know a few.

[ottawa5]

"Apology" for my profession?  It's bit of a stretch to insinuate from the fact that I do not deify psychologists that I am apologizing for a whole profession. Actually I do not deify much of anything, except my Creator. I just believe that psychology has its place, as do other approaches to any problem as multi-faceted as a teenager who is acting self-destructively.

Here is the thing: in my view, these schools have three components: behavioral, educational, and psychological.  So, of course I do not want psychologists in charge of all components. These are not mental institutions, where psychological/psychiatric management is the one overriding approach (although even there, there are often behavioral and other specialists playing an important role). Much of what these kids need is structure, discipline, and consistent reinforcement which they are not getting at home, and they are going to have to get this type of reinforcement in all parts of their program if success can be hoped for.  

It is true that behavior modification was formalized within the discipline of psychology, but the principles underlying it have existed, I would guess, since human beings had cognition, and those techniques can be used in any discipline, not just by psychologists. In an emotional growth atmosphere, where the ultimate hope is to put the child in touch with his or her emotional self, and to promote self-love and care, this reinforcement must be done with kindness and concern, as well as firmness--it appears that for some of the people here, this requirement was not met.


You have to remember that there are kids in the adolescent years who really do not belong in a psychiatric institution and yet their behavior makes it impossible for them to be cared for safely at home. I have a sense that a portion of, though not all, of the problems that the unfavorable outcomes represent, is poor program placement.  Some kids maybe got placed in these kinds of schools for problems that really could have been managed at home, making them according to their temperment, brooding and resentful about it (I know of a young woman who was in this situation and sent home from RMA after a year, and she is not angry at all about the experience, so it does depend on the person).    Others may have had more serious psychological problems than a school of this kind was equipped to handle.  

I read a post around here from someone who graduated back when kids on psychotropic medications were not even considered for admission and I remember Mel talking abou that, too, how Dr. Phillips and others had convinced him that psychotropics could actually help put the child in touch with his or her true self and so the policy changed.  I am wondering if, with this reasonable change (because certainly some kids on medications can function in this kind of a program and, in point of fact, some shouldn't be on them anyway), I wonder if it developed that kids who were too seriously dysfunctional to function in these kinds of programs have sometimes been mistakenly admitted.

So what I am seeing as major pitfalls in the programs at this point are: 1)the danger of not hiring staff with the personal qualities that allow for kindness and firmness, as well training or some kind of knowledge of adolescents and 2) the danger of not adequately triaging the students who are accepted, or at least having different programs that are tailored to different states of psychological functioning.

Maybe the reason that we had such a great experience, is that my son was theoretically at least, almost the ideal candidate for the RMA program; very defiant though not intentionally harmful to self or others, using drugs in a self-endangering way, no other psychological difficulties to speak of, and conflicts in his upbringing that he had the intelligence and insight to be able to discuss and resolve once he was no longer too angry to talk. And, at least at the time we were involved in the school, the staff, across the board was pretty wonderful; there is a lot of turnover in this line of work, I admit that maybe it was not always wonderful for other times and places.

So maybe the difference in outcome do start to make sense, maybe it's not a matter of someone lying or someone else being brain-washed.  Maybe there are subtle differences among experiences that should be explored further.
[ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-30 08:17 ]

[Anonymous]

Folks, we are WAY off course here. Aren't we here to discuss CEDU? Isn't this an OPEN forum? If Ottawa has positive opinion of CEDU, why are we arguing with her? She has the right, as a thinking adult, to have any opinion she likes.

Judging by her long posts arguing with people, I question that she actually IS in the profession of psychotherapy. She does not in any stretch of the imagination write like a therapist. She is getting way to personally involved - she's getting her feelings hurt and working really, really hard to defend herself. If she really is in school to be a therapist, she is early in her program, or only getting a master's degree. (Folks, a master's is only two years after a bachelor's -I know this because I got one before I earned my Ph.D.)

IF she is in a graduate program, and not undergrad as I think she is, she's in a crummy program or she's getting poor supervision - or she has a personality disorder. She uses psychobabble inappropriately and is labling people here. She reads like a person with borderline personality disorder. Borderlines are more crazy-making than psychotic people.

I've stayed out of the Ottawa posts, but I'm just, frankly, growing weary of them. She certainly has the right to her opinion and the only thing we will accomplish by arguing with her is to back her more into her corner. There is just no point. You know the saying - "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only frustrates you and annoys the pig." I'm not calling her a pig - not at all! But, that saying makes a point. You can't make your cat grow wings and you can't develop a third arm. We are what we are. Reading what I did of the Ottawa posts, I get the distinct impression of an untrained person, or someone with alarmingly poor supervision. Certainly, she does not read like a therapist - not by a long shot. So, tell yourself that she has her opinion, probably is borderline (or at least histrionic) and just forget about it.

Am I using psychobabble? No. I have a Ph.D. in this and am certainly qualified to put such lables on these posts. It doesn't feel good. Not at all. But I want you all to understand the utter futility of arguing with her. Let her have her opinion and let's see what we can do about CEDU. We have more important battles than arguing with someone whose opinion we cannot change - and who cannot change ours! Let's work together!

[ottawa5]

Speaking of sounding suspicious, I'd bet the rent that you are not anyone with advanced training in psychology--maybe I'm wrong and you're just atypical---it happens, but a number of things you say make me do something that I seldom do, that is, to say that I think you are not being truthful. It is correct that I have said that our family's experiences were not like some of the others expressed here, but I have never suggested that these people were not being truthful. I am saying that about you.

For one thing, I am shocked that a real psychologist would try to diagnose someone as borderline or anything else from posts on a web site.  What a fine clinician you must be if, indeed there is any truth to your claim, why have an office, you can just work from your lap top in a coffee shop.

The other thing is that you either don't read terribly well or are kind of obtuse, because I have said several times that I am not here as a therapist, but as an individual and a parent who may someday open a school of my own.  Now I guess that you could get your Ph.D. and not be a careful reader enough to get this, but it is another argument that something may be fishy with your post.

Thirdly, I have been told by many psycholosts and others in the helping professions that my writing style is ideal for the discipline because I have excellent grammar, vocabulary, and expressive skills, indeed, I have actually published work in a referreed, scientific journal and will probably do so again.  Now, of course it is a difficult argument to make that one "doesn't write like a therapist" anyway, because therapists write in all sorts of ways.  Again a sign, not conclusive to be sure, but a possible sign that you don't know much about scientific/psychological writing or the way therapists write (ie differently) from one another.

What might be a legitimate concern to you is: how can I be a student in practicum training and yet be on line so much:  it happens that this time period is a break in our class work and I am working on my thesis on a computer beside the one I am posting on--I am only actually on site for my practicum part-time in the summer.  Since I am an extremely prolific and quick writer, I use the posting as a break between thesis ideas.  A clarificaiton for you, just in case you are not as full of prunes as I think you are. and you are legitimately puzzled by my availability on line.

My hunch is that, whether or not you have any training in psychology, you are a fan of this site and you are alarmed by my presence which you find challenges the party line here.  

Maybe that is why you would throw around psychological terms and do such an extremely unethical thing as to attempt diagnose someone from some web posts.  

Come on now, Pseudo-Psychologist, everyone works better for a little competition--and anyway one of these days my hiatus from training will end and I won't be here, near so much at least.  Then you can do back to being whoever you really are and post as you would like to, in the absence of anyone to readily challenge you. [ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-30 09:18 ][ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-30 09:21 ]

[Anonymous]

Sounds to me like your son was ideal for cedu because he was weak willed, a trait typical of drug addicts, thats why he couldn't say no.  no will power, no self esteem either, its no wonder why ottawa's son was so easily brainwashed.