Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on March 05, 2006, 02:17:00 PM
-
Instead of abuse, beatings, isolation and all the other cultist dogshit that is inflicted on teenagers, why don't the members of Fornits pool their resources to make a place where kids are given love, attention, respect, and other things they badly need?
Consider it for a moment. Why should we allow these shiteaters the full run of the entire teen-help industry? What's stopping us from giving parents an alternative and maybe saving a shitload of kids?
Why don't we provide a real haven?
-
I think 3 or 4 of the admins/owners. at Carlbrook were former TBS kids and that's what they did.
-
True- they came out of Cascade. But no one on this board will give them any credit for trying to make a good program. These guys have done an incredible job. It isn't perfect, but Grant and Justin had a dream of creating a better model for an emotional growth school. Starting ANY business is hard, much less a school. There have been some glitches and some bad hires, but on the whole, Carlbrook is the best there is. They are quite selective in who they will admit, and NO referral fees are paid.
-
I know, my kid is a graduate. I admire their vision and continued commitment. It took the whole of my kid's stay there for me to really get it and trust them. And, as I recently said on the Carlbrook thread, I'm sorry that all TBS programs are lumped into one big mess of assumptions. Some of the programs around the country are really bad. I did and still do the research. But, my kid did great at Carlbrook and if we have problems again, Carlbrook will not be to blame.
-
Hi Karen.
-
That wasn't me. My kid didn't graduate, remember? It may shock you to learn that there are a number of Carlbrook parents trolling this forum.
Karen
-
On 2006-03-05 11:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Instead of abuse, beatings, isolation and all the other cultist dogshit that is inflicted on teenagers, why don't the members of Fornits pool their resources to make a place where kids are given love, attention, respect, and other things they badly need?
Consider it for a moment. Why should we allow these shiteaters the full run of the entire teen-help industry? What's stopping us from giving parents an alternative and maybe saving a shitload of kids?
Why don't we provide a real haven?"
Umm... because we aren't qualified or certified to work with or counsel at-risk youth?
This is the same mentality as people who believe the program helped them: that just because we had an experience with a behavior mod school, whether it be positive or negative, and that we were troubled teens, that somehow gives us insight into running a program.
Get your therapist's certification, or degree in psychology or psychiatry, and have some experience working with and educating at-risk youth in a junior position to start with, and then come talk to me.
-
On the other hand, we may be quite valuable as advisors to those who DO possess the right qualifications. Those professionals who ARE qualified to reform this industry can't do it without the perspective of those who've been a part of it. Those of us that want to help don't necessarily need to become doctors to do it, but it's silly to think that we could reform the system without at least working with medical professionals who understand how the human brain works on a scientific level. We can help them to understand these issues better, by sharing the details of our experiences, but just because we know exactly how things went wrong doesn't mean any of us necessarily have a clue what would actually be good. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that none of us have any idea how to reform the system, but most of the people on this site are not doctors or psychologists, etc. Our insights are valuable, but that doesn't mean we should necessarily be the ones who make the policies. That's the real problem with these facilities, nobody with any real credentials ever had any say in how these places operate.
-
On 2006-03-05 14:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
"That wasn't me. My kid didn't graduate, remember? It may shock you to learn that there are a number of Carlbrook parents trolling this forum.
Karen"
At least you're honest about your intentions.
-
I define trolling as being somewhere where we are not welcomed. So, yes, I am honest about my presence.
Karen
-
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants. "Troll" can also mean the message itself or be a verb meaning to post such messages. "Trolling" is also commonly used to describe the activity. For more discussion on definitions, see below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)
Must have been a Freudian slip, your statement stands true.
-
On 2006-03-05 15:04:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I define trolling as being somewhere where we are not welcomed. So, yes, I am honest about my presence.
Karen"
If you were not welcome, why would Ginger allow you to post? Sounds like you are projecting, didn't you come from struggling teens - a heavily moderated forum?
-
On 2006-03-05 14:11:00, sorry... try another castle wrote:
"
On 2006-03-05 11:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Instead of abuse, beatings, isolation and all the other cultist dogshit that is inflicted on teenagers, why don't the members of Fornits pool their resources to make a place where kids are given love, attention, respect, and other things they badly need?
Consider it for a moment. Why should we allow these shiteaters the full run of the entire teen-help industry? What's stopping us from giving parents an alternative and maybe saving a shitload of kids?
Why don't we provide a real haven?"
Umm... because we aren't qualified or certified to work with or counsel at-risk youth?
This is the same mentality as people who believe the program helped them: that just because we had an experience with a behavior mod school, whether it be positive or negative, and that we were troubled teens, that somehow gives us insight into running a program.
Get your therapist's certification, or degree in psychology or psychiatry, and have some experience working with and educating at-risk youth in a junior position to start with, and then come talk to me.
"
You are exactly right, and that is the difference between program supporters and the medical/therapeutic/professional/government professionals and everyone else with any sense of rationality.
To the original anon - what type of qualifications do you have to work with teens?
Do you plan on being licensed by the state as an RTC or just starting up in a state like Utah or Montana to skirt the law?
Lastly, why do you want to start a program when you realize they are not effective. You are diverting these teens away from the REAL HELP they need. Just because parents want to send their kid away doesn't mean it's the best thing for the kid.
I think it's a horrible idea. There is a reason why people go to school and why treatment programs need to be licensed.
-
First, I am not Karen. I am Ted.
These are the professionals that run Carlbrook. Grant, Justin and I think John have real life experiences as students in Emotional Growth schools. I checked these men out completely before I sent my kid there. They are commited and want the school to work. My kid did not have any problems with any of these people. Like I said in my earlier post, I wasn't on board completely until it was time to say goodbye to Carlbrook. It was a positive experience for all of us.
The Board of Regents
Glenn F. Bender, A.B., M.A., Ph.D.
Dean of Academics
With a Bachelor of Arts from Kenyon College and a Master of Arts and Doctorate in Philosophy and Educational Policy Studies from the University of Wisconsin, Dr. Bender brings extensive academic and administrative experience to the Board of Regents. During a 25 year career in secondary and higher education, he has served as Dean of Academics and Dean of Admissions at the Academy at Swift River in Massachusetts, Director of Academics at Cascade School in California, Director of Admissions at Blue Ridge School in Virginia, and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southwestern Louisiana.
Tim Brace, B.A., M.C.
Dean of Students
Mr. Brace has truly inspired a generation of students through his vision, innovation and educational leadership. During his distinguished career over the past 25 years, he has served as Headmaster or Executive Director at several secondary boarding schools, including Mt. Bachelor Academy in Oregon and the Academy at Swift River in Massachusetts. With a wealth of knowledge and experience in working with young people and their families that is virtually unmatched, Mr. Brace holds a Bachelor of Arts from the United States Naval Academy and a Master of Counseling from Arizona State University.
Jonathan Gurney, B.A., M.S.W., A.C.S.W.
Dean of Alumni
Mr. Gurney, who received his Bachelor of Arts and Master of Social Work degrees from Indiana University, has 18 years experience working with children and their families. As a Licensed Clinical Social Worker he worked as an Outpatient Family Therapist before serving as the Program Director of a dual inpatient/outpatient adolescent program during his tenure at the Charter Behavioral Health organization. Most recently, Mr. Gurney served as Clinical Director of a licensed wilderness program for adolescents in the Pacific Northwest, where he was responsible for oversight of all clinical services.
John C. Henson, B.B.A., M.B.A.
Dean of Administration
Mr. Henson, who holds a Bachelor of Business Administration from the University of Texas at Austin and a Master of Business Administration from Georgia State University, began his career at Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., where he was promoted to Associate Vice-President of the investment banking firm. After passing the CPA exam, Mr. Henson was hired as Treasurer, and later served as Controller, of Steeltec, LLC, an Atlanta-based manufacturing company, where he was responsible for the firm?s accounting and audit review procedures, financial analysis and reporting, inventory management, and network administration.
Matthew Lovell, B.A., M.A., L.M.F.T
Dean of Advising
Mr. Lovell received his Bachelor of Arts in Rhetoric from the University of California at Berkeley, and his Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology from John F. Kennedy University.A Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and Adjunct Professor at National University, Mr. Lovell has taught courses in child development and family therapy and has nearly 20 years of clinical counseling experience both in the public and private sectors.His former positions include Program Supervisor at Franklin House, Mental Health Specialist at Herrick Hospital, Program Director at Cascade School, and private practice Family Therapist.
Justin J. Merritt, B.S., M.A. candidate, J.D.
Dean of Faculty
Mr. Merritt graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the University of Colorado and went on to study at Harvard University, Columbia University and the Université Paris I-Sorbonne. In addition to general jurisprudence, his scholarship has included the fields of economics, negotiation and dispute resolution, and organization management. With work experience at several law firms and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Merritt received his Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law School and is a candidate for a Master of Arts in Education from Columbia University.
R. Grant Price, B.A., M.A.
Executive Director
After receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of South Carolina, Mr. Price earned his Master of Arts degree from California State University, focusing on the study and analysis of various educational models. Prior to Carlbrook, Mr. Price worked as a Certified Educational Consultant in Columbia, SC, where he evaluated hundreds of educational programs, conducted individual student evaluations and assessments, and identified appropriate educational environments for students. He is a former member of the Independent Educational Consultants Association.
-
Nope- not a Freudian slip. My posts meet the definition since anything I or any other parent says ona this forum in support of a program serves to "upset its participants".
Karen
-
The weak link being Glenn.
-
Glenn was my favorite. But, my kid made all A's and he kept the curriculum challenging. He does not (or did not then) participate in any therapeutic counseling. We were Carlbrook parents for 15 months.
-
It wasn't very hard to make all A s at Carlbrook. It's a weak curriculum. Glenn is an idiot- he tries to wow the parents on first meeting, but he is full of double talk and bullshit. If you really needed anything from him-forget it. Fortunately, his support staff was pretty good.
-
I knew Glenn for 15 months and I had a good student. What I can say for his is that he doesn't suffer fools. He was the kind of "teacher" our child responded to. Not every "teacher" can reach every student. It's funny to me after teaching throughout my adult life that the people who describe an academic program that is "easy to make A's" in rarely do. An "A" is an "A." And, all "A's" can do wonders for a kid looking for some sucess and approval especially when all seemed hopeless just months before. A proper education is not the duty of the school but rather the duty of the student. My kid got enough.
-
On 2006-03-05 16:35:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I knew Glenn for 15 months and I had a good student. What I can say for his is that he doesn't suffer fools. He was the kind of "teacher" our child responded to. Not every "teacher" can reach every student. It's funny to me after teaching throughout my adult life that the people who describe an academic program that is "easy to make A's" in rarely do. An "A" is an "A." And, all "A's" can do wonders for a kid looking for some sucess and approval especially when all seemed hopeless just months before. A proper education is not the duty of the school but rather the duty of the student. My kid got enough."
That was me, Ted.
-
I think the curriculum was as strong is it can be, given the range of kids that were in each class. The courses offered were varied and there were some excellent teachers. One of them was the impetus behind me son wanting to move on to a top NE prep school. That teacher told my son he needed to get out of Carlbrook ASAP because he needed much more academically. My son had come from a top prep school and returned to one after Carlbrook. He was accepted to some of the top colleges in the country. His academic year at Carlbrook didn't hurt him at all.
Glenn Bender was emotionally abusive to my son. He also dropped the ball with respect to some testing and some certifications that needed to be done. When we had to work around him, it pissed him off.
-
I'm sorry to hear that. We didn't ever have a problem like that, especially not with Glenn. However, our kid was a plausible "brown-noser" from way back. That's why it took us so long to detect the problems we were having in the first place. Our kid went straight from Carlbrook to college. Life for all three of us is smooth now. My kid may or may not have been Ivy League material but earned a more than repectable merit scholarship at a good, solid mid-tier college (1st choice) and that helped us justify the expense of Carlbrook. Our child finally seems happy. A happy kid = happy parents. Hopefully we're getting the real story. We keep our fingers crossed. Ted
-
Ya know there is a Carlbrook thread, why don't you address the original topic. Why don't unqualified individuals start programs that don't have to be licensed?
-
I was just pointing out that Grant and Justin did just that at Carlbrook. "Why don't we make a program?" These threads are like Venn Diagrams. They bleed into one another. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ted
-
Sounds like you've been around these forums for a while Ted, I am not familiar... when did your son graduate, maybe I knew him?
Carlbrook alumn
-
I've purposely not indicated the gender of my kid. It's our child's story to tell. When he/she is ready to post at this place he/she can give his/her name and the Greek letter corresponding to his/her graduating class. I've just found Fornits on Friday and can see it may not be wise to give personal info since it looks like some of the not so succesful students of these programs take below the belt pot-shots at kids (and parents)that moved on, did well and respect their time and the people at Carlbrook.
-
Sounds like you've been hanging around these forums for a while from the tone of your posts, forgive my confusion. It might look to some that you are in fact not a Carlbrook parent since you are unwilling to provide any information that can be refuted by real students and staff. Not saying this is true, but the last post definitely raised questions in my mind.
I have never seen one happy carlbrook student EVER post here and tell us their name and when they went, not even just a first name. Interesting that the kids who had a hard time have no issues with giving up their name and year, they are much more believable.
For instance, how do we know you are not employed at Carlbrook?
-
Why would anyone who has something positive to say about a program share their identity and personal information here? It doesn't take long to see the abuse, foul-language, harrassing emails and IMs that are received by anyone who dares to identify themself. There have been plenty of positive reports about Carlbrook, including the letter from Rico Moreno that was re-posted here. All that gets ignored. If you are pro-Carlbrook or pro ANY program, it is because you are brain-washed.
-
I can see that this is going nowhere. Misery loves company. My kid keeps in touch with Carlbrook friends and they've been guests in our home. They didn't all love Carlbrook or all the kids there. In fact, dealing with the chronic troublemakers made their lives at Carlbrook ghastly at times. It certainly wasn't the staff. I would bet that some of you fit into the category of chronic pains in the ass. EVERY school's got 'em. Ted
-
Our kid has moved on. Carlbrook was the springboard. Surfing around this negativity would be emotionally dangerous for him/her...like hitting your head on the board on the way back down. It would be on his/her way back down that he/she would grace this area. I just came here on a tip from a former, satisfied Carlbrook family that thought it was interesting. Did any of you, if you are truly alums, like anything or anybody there? Ted
-
Ted, you should take Karen out on a date. You might cure each other.
-
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/let ... 051018.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/lettertoeditor/moreno_rico051018.htm)
This is a letter from a wonderful young man who has moved on after Carlbrook.
Yes, Ted, if you can stand to read through the whole Carlbrook thread, you will see several posts from teens and parents who had positive experiences at/with Carlbrook.
You are correct in saying that, like your son, most of the Carlbrook kids would not be interested in spending any time on a site like this. I DO appreciate the ones that do defend the program and the staff, but it is a losing battle on this site.
My kid was in the peer group with Karen's kid, and while he also left the program early (when he turned 18), he made some strong friendships with students and staff. He got a lot of tools which continue to serve him well.
-
Ah, a link to a forum which does not allow dissenting views. :roll:
-
On 2006-03-05 18:35:00, Anonymous wrote:
"http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/lettertoeditor/moreno_rico051018.htm
This is a letter from a wonderful young man who has moved on after Carlbrook.
Yes, Ted, if you can stand to read through the whole Carlbrook thread, you will see several posts from teens and parents who had positive experiences at/with Carlbrook.
You are correct in saying that, like your son, most of the Carlbrook kids would not be interested in spending any time on a site like this. I DO appreciate the ones that do defend the program and the staff, but it is a losing battle on this site.
My kid was in the peer group with Karen's kid, and while he also left the program early (when he turned 18), he made some strong friendships with students and staff. He got a lot of tools which continue to serve him well. "
Do you feel this kid is in a position to start his own program? That is what this thread is about. If you want to address Carlbrook, I have some questions though.
1) What are the success rates demonstrated over a 5 and 10 year period for programs you sent your child?
2)Of the relapse rate how many are due to post-tramuatic stress disorders? In that number if at all possible please include a break down of the types of relapses. For example, suicide, self mutilation, substance abuse, and violence towards others would be very helpful.
3) What reputable body of psycologists certified both of the programs? NATSAP, WWASP, NATWC, and other such gentleman's organizations need not apply to this catergory. I am refering to state liscensing bodies, and more specifically national leagues of reputable psycologists. The APA would be a good place to start.
-
Carlbrook hasn't been around for 5 years. The success rates for EG programs are not high. Doesn't matter- the programs are a last resort for parents and they are worth a shot. I have heard no instances of PTSD in Carlbrook grads. It is simply not that type of program. I could care less about the licensing. There are trained, degreed professionals on staff.
-
On 2006-03-05 18:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ted, you should take Karen out on a date. You might cure each other."
I'm married. But, is Karen a bad person because she liked bits and pieces of Carlbrook? Where is this hatred and intolerance coming from?
-
I'm married, too, Ted. I guess we weren't meant to be! :smile: I am a bad person because I argued with them briefly a few months ago and from that moment on all pro-program posts that offended their narrow view of the world got attributed to me. They sent me threatening emails and IMs, published my email address on the forum, accused me of drug abuse- you name it. Just a little background there...
Karen
-
On 2006-03-05 18:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Carlbrook hasn't been around for 5 years. The success rates for EG programs are not high. Doesn't matter- the programs are a last resort for parents and they are worth a shot. I have heard no instances of PTSD in Carlbrook grads. It is simply not that type of program. I could care less about the licensing. There are trained, degreed professionals on staff."
Fair enough.
Here's a couple more... open to anyone familiar with the program.
1. Do they utilize isolation at all?
2. Do they receive psychotherapy?
3. What type of interaction is there with the family, to help the transition back home?
4. Are there any reported incidents of abuse? Official or non-official?
5. Do they claim to be a place for a kid with a serious drug or mental problem? (instead of refering him to a psych hospital, etc)
6. How many kids reside at the program, is it crowded?
7. Can a parent visit unannounced?
8. Is communication restricted, if so, how?
9. What happens if a kid runs away? Has this happened?
10. Do they offer referal programs to parents, or any incentive to sell this program to their friends and relatives? Or anything related to this?
Thanks in advance!!!
-
On 2006-03-05 18:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-03-05 18:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ted, you should take Karen out on a date. You might cure each other."
I'm married. But, is Karen a bad person because she liked bits and pieces of Carlbrook? Where is this hatred and intolerance coming from?"
If you want to see hatred and intolerance I'll link you to some of Karens old posts.
-
On 2006-03-05 18:58:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I'm married, too, Ted. I guess we weren't meant to be! :smile: I am a bad person because I argued with them briefly a few months ago and from that moment on all pro-program posts that offended their narrow view of the world got attributed to me. They sent me threatening emails and IMs, published my email address on the forum, accused me of drug abuse- you name it. Just a little background there...
Karen"
And would you say the joke about Ted and you was less or more offensive than some of your old posts? Just giving some perspective.
-
1. Do they utilize isolation at all?
I don't believe there is total isolation in any instance. There are writing assignments where you have to sit by yourself and aren't allowed to attend class, and there are work assignments such as chopping down stumps. You are not locked in a room or anything.
2. Do they receive psychotherapy?
There is individual and group therapy. I don't know the exact definition of psychotherapy.
3. What type of interaction is there with the family, to help the transition back home?
There are weekly or bi-weekly calls with the family, on-campus visits, off-campus visits, home visits and then transition planning with the student and the family.
4. Are there any reported incidents of abuse? Official or non-official?
None that I am aware of.
5. Do they claim to be a place for a kid with a serious drug or mental problem? (instead of refering him to a psych hospital, etc)
No- they specifically state that they will not take students with serious mental problems. Wilderness is required first, which serves as a detox period.
6. How many kids reside at the program, is it crowded?
There are around 100 kids or maybe a few over that. Some of the dorm rooms get crowded, but the campus is large and the buildings are nice.
7. Can a parent visit unannounced?
I don't think that would be encouraged, but nothing would prevent you from showing up.
8. Is communication restricted, if so, how?
Letters to and from the parents are not restricted. Other communication is restricted.
9. What happens if a kid runs away? Has this happened?
If a kid runs away he is sent back to wilderness, in most cases.
10. Do they offer referal programs to parents, or any incentive to sell this program to their friends and relatives? Or anything related to this?
Absolutely no referral fees or incentives. The school has a waitlist.
-
Do they have "seminars" or something like them, or LGAT training? Any high pressure tactics applied as in seminars?
Are the students given authority over other students?
How would this program's model compare to WWASPS?
-
1. Do they utilize isolation at all?
They isolate some kids from other kids but never are in solitary confinement.
2. Do they receive psychotherapy?
Yes, a Doctor comes to Carlbrook from Duke University. He monitors each student on meds and communicates well with the parents.
3. What type of interaction is there with the family, to help the transition back home?
There are total family conferences that occur every two months. They are held away from Carlbrook and ar great fro getting to know the entire faculty as well as the advisors. There is a special Transition Conference a couple of months before they leave.
4. Are there any reported incidents of abuse? Official or non-official?
None that I am aware of.
5. Do they claim to be a place for a kid with a serious drug or mental problem? (instead of refering him to a psych hospital, etc)
No, they don't. My kid came via a psych hospital because he/she didn't need to be at one. The psych hospital recommended the school to us.
6. How many kids reside at the program, is it crowded?
I think there are about 125 students. It's rolling admissions so the numbers change. Inever noticed overcrowding. My kid never complained of that.
7. Can a parent visit unannounced?
I never asked. But, if I had showed up I seriously doubt they would have had me removed from the premises.
8. Is communication restricted, if so, how?
Communication is scheduled. 20 minutes once a week and letters are delivered promptly. Parents have weekly phone appointments with the advisors and if things are going well then it becomes every two weeks. But, you can call anytime.
9. What happens if a kid runs away? Has this happened?
It happens. If the kid is 18 then the school has no recourse. If the kid is under 18 they usually go back to a wilderness program and then it is determined whether or not the kid belongs back at Carlbrook.
10. Do they offer referal programs to parents, or any incentive to sell this program to their friends and relatives? Or anything related to this?
NO. They have a lengthy waiting list. It's not their style.
Thanks in advance!!!"
Your welcome, Ted
[/quote]
-
Another one...
does the school reccomend the use of escorts? If so, how common is this utilized?
-
Ted- our answers were so similar. I guess we know what we are talking about!
Karen
-
The school does use Workshops, which are an important therapeutic tool. These are valued highly by the students.
The school does encourage the use of escorts, but does allow families to transport the teen from wilderness to Carlbrook if there is no stop at home along the way.
As far as authority over other students- there are privileges gained as you move up to more senior status. I would not refer to it as "authority over other students".
-
On 2006-03-05 19:20:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Do they have "seminars" or something like them, or LGAT training? Any high pressure tactics applied as in seminars?
My kid (a very sensitive, gentle kid) really felt good about the seminars. It's not fun to face your own demons but he/she was empowered by the workshops. The demons are not the staff members.
I don't know what LGAT training is.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGAT)
-
On 2006-03-05 19:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Another one...
does the school reccomend the use of escorts? If so, how common is this utilized? "
My kid went willingly. I'm sure some kids don't.
-
My kid is not a sensitive, gentle kid (he hides his sensitivity) and while resistant to most things therapeutic, REALLY liked the workshops. As thrilled as he was to be able to leave the program early, he actually regretted missing the last two workshops.
Karen
-
Thank you. Now I know exactly what LGAT stands for. I know them from my kid as workshops.
-
Karen,
I hope you have continued good luck with your son. This whole scene is dragging up some rotten memories for me. It was a long 15 months and I'm happy it's over. But, some of the people at Carlbrook made it bearable for all of us. I just wanted to get my information out there. I thought my child's private she-she prep school was way more abusive than Carlbrook was. My kid thought so, too. He/she asks to visit Carlbrook but will never set foot in his/her old High School again. Ted
-
Thanks, Ted. You, too. Glad you stopped by. I check this out every now and then to try to add some balance. It is a losing battle, though. I have a lot of admiration for the folks that started Carlbrook and have dedicated themselves to building a quality program. It's a tough and heart-breaking business.
Karen
-
Hehe.
Okay, so obviously we have some disagreements and I will explain my views. No need to argue, since we obviously have differing positions.
LGAT training can be harmful to some, ineffective for many.
Escorting is dangerous, it's not regulated at all.
I think the success rate of forced treatment is obismal. We don't even know because nobody keeps stats. I think there's reason why.
I read that Carlbrook does utilize a peer or level type system. I do not agree with a hierarchy of students, because it's supposed to involve progress in the program, but it often morphs into normal teenage social hierarchy [popular and jocks]. My point, the kids who needed help the most are the ones who get ignored and picked on/fight by the older kids. The younger ones especially.
By using workshops they think there is a generic 'fix it' solution. I think the kids are all individuals with individuals issues that need to be approached in different ways.
LGAT's provide a short term relief, and dont really solve issues.
What incentive would the school have to send a kid home, they make a lot of money, so why would they not extend their stay to make more money and tweek policy towards this direction - are they not a for-profit business? 125 kids times thousands of dollars per kid/month is a lot of money.(about a half mil gross at least ..with rough math)
These are some of my differing opinions. It seems this school is "better" than WWASP, PROVO, CEDU; but there are RTC's out there that don't use LGAT, escorts, and peer-hierarchial system. You wont see their names on this website either. I think there is a pattern emerging. Why is it the programs using the tactics I listed above the only ones that get negative attention/reviews? (besides those horribly physically abusive state run boot camps of course :sad: )
-
a few more thoughts..
This type of program provides a strict model, and the student is pressured to fit into that model. I disagree with this model.
I believe a treatment model in which the "helper(s)" (facility, psychiatrist, therapist, hospital, whoever) learn about the "helpee", and then build a treatment model around them based upon the results of their examinations/observations.
-
I think one of the reasons there are fewer abuses at Carlbrook is that the school is kept small. This prevents some of the teen issues of rank. Plus, every 4 months or so a class graduates and new kids come in. It is very rare that a kid stays longer than 15 months- in some cases the school allows a student to stay to complete high school after they have completed the emotional growth program. The workshops are just one component of the program. I have never heard anything but positives about the workshops. Perhaps they are structured differently than some of the other LGAT programs.
My son's escorts were actually highly recommended and very professional. My son did everything he could to escape from them, but ultimately gained a lot of respect for them when they didn't lose their cool and successfully got him to Utah.
This is just our experience.
Karen
-
There is lots of room in the treatment model for adjustments for individual treatment. The writing assignments and discussions are very tailored to the particular student. What happens in the workshops is also individualized. There really is no forcing of a system on the kid. There are certainly strict rules and little freedom in terms of dress,social interactiona nd the like, but the program really focuses on what each student needs.
-
You would not even believe how much information I gave to Carlbrook concerning my kid. They ask for anything and everything. The application is very lengthy and very direct. There's nothing about our family that Carlbrook doesn't know. There are reports from every school he/she's been to, medical records, psych hospital records, private therapy referrals and reports, developmental reports, pediatric reports, drug testing and a very thourough Psychological and Educational testing that was administered to my kid in the Wilderness by a licensed psychologist. Also, the licensed psychologist that tended to my kid in the Wilderness wrote her own report. Then, upon acceptance, the school picked a therapist (advisor) that best suited my kid. We had two advisors. Both were excellent, both are still there. During the last half of the program, y kid became a prefect and had some extra responsibilities and some perks. But, he/she is anything but a bully and was respected by most of the students. Carlbrook does not tolerate bullying of any kind. That will get a kid into trouble faster than anything. And, on the escort issue, if my kid needed to have one I probably wouldn't have sent him/her. That would have been a deal breaker for me. Fortunately my kid was willing to give it a try. He/she stayed well past his/her 18th birthday. He/she was finished with the academics but wanted to complete the program before going to college. He/she felt great about finally finishing something other than a joint or a beer.
-
That last posting was from me- Ted.
-
Please compare and contrast the workshops at Carlbrook vs the workshops at RMA. I felt that the workshops at RMA were very traumatic experiences.
I would prefer not to hear generic "nothing in life is easy" answers. I would prefer to hear details regarding the specific exercises that are part of the workshops.
To make things more open and focused I would like to hear more about whatever workshop would be similar to our "Truth Propheet". I assume that that would be the first workshop's "topic" at Carlbrook also. Basically...a play by play account of the whole propheet/workshop would be nice.
-
LGATs, no matter what they are called, are just rehashed versions of the old EST (erhard seminar training) from the 1970s.
People who like them will speak about feelings and lots of vague or emotional terms, usually utilizing lots of 'feelgood' terms and generally using newspeak ala george orwell... as the anons here have demonstrated so well.
Ultimately, whoever, thats all it is. Feelings and pathological effects that wear off unless you
continually throw the person into the seminar to mantain it.
In other words, you cant make a program thats good anymore than you can make an apple thats an orage.
Im not going to say a regime of continual brainwashing is a good idea for children, teens, OR adults. I will, however say that its bullshit, and all the stuff the anons here are saying is boilerplate promotional propaganda for the programs, and so they can remind THEMSELVES they still believe in it.
There are lots of articles floating around about them, Ill share a few.
http://nospank.net/lile.htm (http://nospank.net/lile.htm)
http://nospank.net/bean.htm (http://nospank.net/bean.htm)
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awa ... hology.htm (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/pathology.htm)
http://springcreeklodgeexperience.blogspot.com/ (http://springcreeklodgeexperience.blogspot.com/)
There are others out there, including personal accounts from the CHILDREN who have been through these, at ISAC and at the above blogspot link.
Its about time someone brought in the other side of the coin to this thread... and, well the bottom line, which these programmies dont seem to get:
You cant make a program not abusive and still have it a program! If you ditched the seminars (or WHATEVER you call an LGAT these days), the isolation and prevention or control of communication, the bullshit punitive practices, the stupid rules, the hierarchies, ESPECIALLY having oldcomers lead around newcomers, the ridiculous tuitions, and basically ditch anything that has anything to do with brainwashing, mind control, behavior modification, or "breaking them down" in any way, you basically have... nothing left, except whatever facilities they have for hygene, boarding, clothes washing facilities, food prep and schoolbooks they made the children teach themselves out of.
Honestly, if you 'fixed' a program youd basically have a boarding school with on site therapy. And boarding schools with on site therapy, but no bullshit communication control, prevention of children from seeing their family, friends and lawyers and no abuse are NOT PROGRAMS by any stretch of the imagination!
In other words, the point isn't to 'build a better mouse trap' or make a 'good program' - its to make a place that actually provides therapy, has people who are responsible to tell parents to sod off if they want to put the kid in for *THEM* and not becuase the kid has any need, and to tell misinformed or scared parents that nothing is wrong, if, infact, nothing is wrong!
-
On 2006-03-05 14:11:00, sorry... try another castle wrote:
"
On 2006-03-05 11:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Instead of abuse, beatings, isolation and all the other cultist dogshit that is inflicted on teenagers, why don't the members of Fornits pool their resources to make a place where kids are given love, attention, respect, and other things they badly need?
Consider it for a moment. Why should we allow these shiteaters the full run of the entire teen-help industry? What's stopping us from giving parents an alternative and maybe saving a shitload of kids?
Why don't we provide a real haven?"
Umm... because we aren't qualified or certified to work with or counsel at-risk youth?
This is the same mentality as people who believe the program helped them: that just because we had an experience with a behavior mod school, whether it be positive or negative, and that we were troubled teens, that somehow gives us insight into running a program.
Get your therapist's certification, or degree in psychology or psychiatry, and have some experience working with and educating at-risk youth in a junior position to start with, and then come talk to me.
"
STAC, knowing as you and I do that you dont actually need qualifications to do jack shit in this industry, the two of us could go down and get a business loan and open up "Sorry, try another ranch" and get $ue $cheff to refer kids to us at the drop of a hat.
And, well, wed probably get filthy rich.
OTOH, if we and other fornitsers went and started up a 'program' but just were upfront with the kids that its all a racket, what the parents are expecting, and what they do at other programs, we could just 'coach' them in how to put on an act on a phone when the parents call and just let them watch TV And play video games all day, and if any of them need real therapy we could call in a therapist for the kid. If they get violent wed call the cops and if they needed hospital treatment for whatever reason... err... actually call 911!
Yeah, it wouldnt be REAL help and treatment, but then again for the 2% that need it, if its even that much, as I said above, we could just call in a psychologist or whatever specialist we'd need.
None of the other programs actually provide any education, so why should we bother? If we wanted to we could get real teachers with the money charged from tuition!
Still, considering most of these kids need a BREAK, and some TLC, not programming and being broken down, Id say just take them out to do things for fun and let them just do what comes naturally - socialize. We'd also be taking money out of the hands of some stoopid parents that they cant go spend on a WWASPS program :roll:
-
1. Do they utilize isolation at all?
I don't believe there is total isolation in any instance. There are writing assignments where you have to sit by yourself and aren't allowed to attend class, and there are work assignments such as chopping down stumps. You are not locked in a room or anything.
Nice deflection. Isolation doesnt mean being locked in a seclusion room - it also means if youre isolated from the outside world - free, open communication with family and friends, the authorities, legal representation or advocatsy, knowledge of whats going on (news, etc).
Most programs use extreme isolation in THAT regard, even if youre not told you cant talk to people or locked in a room.
2. Do they receive psychotherapy?
There is individual and group therapy. I don't know the exact definition of psychotherapy.
WHAT kind of therapy? The confrontational bullshit every other program uses?
3. What type of interaction is there with the family, to help the transition back home?
There are weekly or bi-weekly calls with the family, on-campus visits, off-campus visits, home visits and then transition planning with the student and the family.
If there are actually weekly visits, and its real, uncensored communication, thats a good thing. However, back in STRAIGHT when you had family visits half of it was setting you up for failure, or just more pain - you had to tell them how much you loved the program, couldnt complain, and people were there to listen to make sure you did AND stop them from listening.
Does carlbrook do any of the same?
4. Are there any reported incidents of abuse? Official or non-official?
None that I am aware of.
Fair enough. Then again, carlbrook admittedly uses LGATs, which is abusive, intrinsically.
5. Do they claim to be a place for a kid with a serious drug or mental problem? (instead of refering him to a psych hospital, etc)
No- they specifically state that they will not take students with serious mental problems. Wilderness is required first, which serves as a detox period.
"WILDERNESS" IS NOT DETOX! DETOX REQUIRES A MEDICAL STAFF WITH ALL THE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR THAT! ARGH!
Marching through the woods doesnt magically do anything! Its stressful, unplesant, VERY isolated, and a great vehicle for confrontational therapy and other LGAT-like practices. And, its notoriously filthy, unhygenic, not good for someone with real emotional problems, and COMPLETELY unprepared for someone who needs detox.
If youre sick, do you take a hike, or do you rest? Jeeze.
6. How many kids reside at the program, is it crowded?
There are around 100 kids or maybe a few over that. Some of the dorm rooms get crowded, but the campus is large and the buildings are nice.
Fix the crowded dorm facilities. Theres no excuse for any business that makes the kind of revenue a program does to have people living in crowded facilities. Give them AT MINIMUM enough to be safe and comfortable and clean, and then maybe a little more. The parents are certainly paying enough for these kids to stay in a luxury hotel, yet it seems theyre forced to live as 'low' as possible.
7. Can a parent visit unannounced?
I don't think that would be encouraged, but nothing would prevent you from showing up.
Oh, nothing prevents them showing up, but could they speak to their kids alone, unmolested, no questions asked? Could they take the kid and leave?
And while we're there, what prevents anyone else from picking up the kid?
8. Is communication restricted, if so, how?
Letters to and from the parents are not restricted. Other communication is restricted.
What about extended family? Grand parents have visitation rights theyre generally not aware of, and if the kids trying to get better, how would isolation from family and friends that care about them and love them help?
9. What happens if a kid runs away? Has this happened?
If a kid runs away he is sent back to wilderness, in most cases.
REDFLAG. Using "wilderness" as a stick? What a joke! Any reason Carlbrook cant personally make kids live in filth, do heavy labor and get their buttons pushed until they break down themselves?
10. Do they offer referal programs to parents, or any incentive to sell this program to their friends and relatives? Or anything related to this?
Absolutely no referral fees or incentives. The school has a waitlist.
Well, thats the first truly positive thing about carlbrook Ive heard.
-
On 2006-03-05 19:30:00, Anonymous wrote:
"My kid is not a sensitive, gentle kid (he hides his sensitivity) and while resistant to most things therapeutic, REALLY liked the workshops. As thrilled as he was to be able to leave the program early, he actually regretted missing the last two workshops.
Karen"
Really? Is the kid lying to you under threat of punishment or more time in a program or 'wilderness' or are you lying?
http://nospank.net/lile.htm (http://nospank.net/lile.htm)
http://nospank.net/bean.htm (http://nospank.net/bean.htm)
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awa ... hology.htm (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/pathology.htm)
http://springcreeklodgeexperience.blogspot.com/ (http://springcreeklodgeexperience.blogspot.com/)
Well, then again, for the sake of fairness, I must realize theres the possibility that the child, and/or yourself might have been unduly influced by a seminar and cant be held responsible for spewing the same feelings laden, factually vacant nonsense we've all heard before.
Doesnt change the fact that its nothing but manipulative bullshit that was debunked ages ago.
-
My kid is 19 and heading for college. He has no reason to lie to me about anything treatment-related. He liked the workshops I can't answer your specific questions about them. Perhaps Carlbrook has changed the model enough that they aren't "mind-fucks", as you call them. Perhaps they are valuable tools for the kids. I'm just telling you what my anti-therapy, anti-program kid, who is very assertive and NOT easily influenced by anyone, has to say.
As for isolation- I will agree that many of the distractions of the outside world were removed. There was some access to newspapers and news, but not a whole lot. There were some trips into "town" for dinner, movies, medical appointments.
This place was not a jail. My son was bent out of shape because he didn't have internet access or a cell phone. One of the benefits of going to wilderness first is that you learn that you don't really need those things.
If you recall, my position is that wilderness (at least the program my son attended) is an incredible and necessary therapeutic intervention. When Carlbrook sends kids back to wilderness it is to allow them to work on specific issues which prevented them from remaining in the community.
Karen
-
I think one of the reasons there are fewer abuses at Carlbrook is that the school is kept small. This prevents some of the teen issues of rank.
Good point, I think an ideal school would be kept small, it prevents rank and also you can lose sight of their individual needs if a school gets too large. The intimacy of a small school can foster the feeling of being safe also.
-
On 2006-03-05 14:23:00, Goodtobefree wrote:
"On the other hand, we may be quite valuable as advisors to those who DO possess the right qualifications. Those professionals who ARE qualified to reform this industry can't do it without the perspective of those who've been a part of it. Those of us that want to help don't necessarily need to become doctors to do it, but it's silly to think that we could reform the system without at least working with medical professionals who understand how the human brain works on a scientific level. We can help them to understand these issues better, by sharing the details of our experiences, but just because we know exactly how things went wrong doesn't mean any of us necessarily have a clue what would actually be good. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that none of us have any idea how to reform the system, but most of the people on this site are not doctors or psychologists, etc. Our insights are valuable, but that doesn't mean we should necessarily be the ones who make the policies. That's the real problem with these facilities, nobody with any real credentials ever had any say in how these places operate."
Goodtobefree ? I think you would have some great input in building a new place. I know I have some ideas myself from my experience and from what I learned from my daughter, but you have first hand experience. We may not have the degrees in the field or psychologists, but like you said we can help them to understand some of the issues, what worked, what didn?t work. We could help them build on those areas we feel benefited the kids most.
-
To the original anon thinking about forming an org:
Instead of building a program, why not form a watchdog organization? I think the skills and experiences of the people on this site would be much more effective going this route.
Let's say you start a program, how many kids will that effect? 25? 50? 100 at most? Now think about how many kids are sent to WWASPS, PROVO, and other notoriously abusive programs every year. You would harldy make a dent.
But with an effective awareness campaign, the effect could be widespread and contagious.
I think fornits is already a great resource because it's the event horizon where anti-program folks and pro-program folks collide. There is a lot of information here, supporting both arguments. However, this forum is a microcosm of a debate that most people don't even know about, or care about. So they haven't even chosen a stance on whether they agree with this type of 'help' or not. In my experience the ignorant tend to assume these programs are okay; after a decade of daytime TV show hosts using these programs, I am not surprised. We all know about their extensive, intrusive and dishonest marketing strategies. They prey on the weak; frightened parents willing to make a hard choice to keep their kid alive... at least in their own mind. These programs know this and profit from it.
We all saw the outrage when the young boy was beat to death in Florida. The press was all over it for weeks. But what about the deaths at all the other places... not a peep. We all know the government officials don't care, and don't even enforce existing law, so lobbying for more regulation and laws seems a fruitless effort. In fact, many programs are owned by those same government officials. In my opinion, awareness is key, not so much another program.
-
One more thing... if you start a program, and continue to criticize other programs - you will simply appear to be a competing program trying to badmouth your competion. You'd give yourself a motive to put other camps out of business.
Just because we know how to run a super-profitable business taking advantage of frightened parents at the expense of their kids access to more effective treatment, doesnt mean we should.
-
On 2006-03-05 14:23:00, Goodtobefree wrote:
"That's the real problem with these facilities, nobody with any real credentials ever had any say in how these places operate."
That's not entirely true, and a sad fact about these places. Some do find medical staff to sign on to a harmful program, giving them appearable credibility.
Take Provo (http://http://www.beyondbusiness.net/) Canyon (http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5238&forum=9) for instance. If you check out their staff (http://http://www.provocanyon.com/staff_chart.html) page and you will see how many capital letters after names there are. They are also accredited by several organizations. My adolescent psychiatrist referred me there, about as professional as one can get. He just didn't know, he had never been there, they just mailed him brochures to keep around. Somehow the idea of going to an 'RTC' came up during my treatment, and that was the only brochure he had left. So the cookie crumbles.
-
I have been reading the feedback from all the posters about the pro's and con's of Carlbrook.
The foundation every program is built on, is the credibility of the owners and employees of the program, regardless of the type of program. The first person on the list of key people for Carlbrook is Dr. Glenn Bender. He states on his resume he has 25 years experience as an educator and employee of a number of programs and schools.
Dr. Bender seems to have forgotten his place of employment just before Carlbrook. From 1999 until he started at Carlbrook, Dr. Bender was the Director of Admissions and Marketing at Alldredge Academy in Davis,West Virginia. In Feb 2001 a child died at Alldredge Academy. One year later, Alldredge Academy pleaded guilty to "Child neglect resulting in death". Dr Bender was the primary recruiter of that childs family. He assured the family that Alldredge Academy was a safe and appropriate placement for a child with depression yet when the child died as a result of depression, Dr. Bender seemed to disappear. I can understand why Dr. Bender would not want to list an employer with a criminal conviction on his resume, considering he was a major player in the crime. In every field, weather it is academics or business, falsifying a resume is a serious breach of ethics usually resulting in dismissal. Did the other principals of Carlbrook not know or not care? In either event this creates a credibility issue and calls into question the honesty of the entire program.
-
It certainly wasn't any secret that Bender was at Alldredge. The lawsuit was a matter of public record. Obviously, the principals of Carlbrook (Price, Merritt and Merritt) felt that the positives of Bender outweighed the negatives. Carlbrook has him in a role where he can't do too much direct harm, and many parents are quite taken with him. I continue to believe he is the weak link in an otherwise exceptional staff at Carlbrook.
-
STAC, knowing as you and I do that you dont actually need qualifications to do jack shit in this industry, the two of us could go down and get a business loan and open up "Sorry, try another ranch" and get $ue $cheff to refer kids to us at the drop of a hat.
And, well, wed probably get filthy rich
Hahaha! "Sorry Mario, the princess is at another ranch."
I was thinking in that monarch thread about the qualifications issue, and figured I could probably get a job there if I wanted to, after I read the employment section for the lead counselor. (Just as long as I didn't tell them I was gay, and hid my tattoos.) I probably couldn't get lead, maybe junior, but my ex-CEDU status would be a major plus. For CEDU, that's all you needed, really. I have a feeling that monarch isn't all that different. In addition, I have a four year BFA, and could simply say that I specialize in "art therapy". I could probably get a job at Carlbrook, too.
Now I ask you, would you trust ME with your children? (Bwahahaha.)
Actually, that would be an interesting experiment. See how many of us could get offered jobs at these places. (Obviously, we wouldn't take them.) But just to see how far we could get through the interview proccess.
_________________
"Learn from your mistakes so that one day you can repeat them precisely."
-Trevor Goodchild
[ This Message was edited by: sorry... try another castle on 2006-03-06 09:57 ]
-
One more thing... if you start a program, and continue to criticize other programs - you will simply appear to be a competing program trying to badmouth your competion. You'd give yourself a motive to put other camps out of business.
One wouldn?t need to criticize other programs, they would be busy doing good 24/7 helping kids out instead of standing on the sidelines pointing out others faults. It?s a different energy when you feel you have made a difference in another?s life to make them a little happier.
Ripping programs and schools apart and pointing out where they went wrong and how much they screwed up is good for getting anger out, short term, but it adds little value to anyone except stroking ones own need to badger others. Don?t get me wrong, this is needed for many people who have had a bad experience, but eventually if and when they grow out of it they can refocus that energy into something positive. One way is to Actually make a difference and feel the accomplishments of helping someone else to improve their lives by lending your experiences.
This is how I read the reason the Anon started this thread and I think it could lead to some great ideas and expose parts of programs which are harmful. Then at some point the thread could be summarized and used by someone starting a school for kids, it could prove to be very interesting, beneficial and useful.
-
On 2006-03-06 09:57:00, TheWho wrote:
"One more thing... if you start a program, and continue to criticize other programs - you will simply appear to be a competing program trying to badmouth your competion. You'd give yourself a motive to put other camps out of business.
One wouldn�t need to criticize other programs, they would be busy doing good 24/7 helping kids out instead of standing on the sidelines pointing out others faults. It�s a different energy when you feel you have made a difference in another�s life to make them a little happier.
Ripping programs and schools apart and pointing out where they went wrong and how much they screwed up is good for getting anger out, short term, but it adds little value to anyone except stroking ones own need to badger others. Don�t get me wrong, this is needed for many people who have had a bad experience, but eventually if and when they grow out of it they can refocus that energy into something positive. One way is to Actually make a difference and feel the accomplishments of helping someone else to improve their lives by lending your experiences.
This is how I read the reason the Anon started this thread and I think it could lead to some great ideas and expose parts of programs which are harmful. Then at some point the thread could be summarized and used by someone starting a school for kids, it could prove to be very interesting, beneficial and useful.
"
Heard of PURE? As soon as programs realize their ex-student critics started their own profitable program, which in Joe Public's eyes looks exactly the same as WWASP, it starts to erode credibility. You will just be adding another program to the mix, making it even MORE difficult for parents to find the legitimate ones within an industry willed with illegitimate programs.
I am saying from a strategic point of view, if your position is to shut down abusive programs, starting your own program would not be the best way to go about this. Remember, the original poster asked why doesn't fornits pool their resources. I am saying I think it would be an effort in a completely misguided direction. The nature of fornits with it's wealth of information, and the fact everyone is spread all over the country, would it not be a much more practical task to create a watchdog group?
What if there was an organization who rated all the programs, A-F? Would you believe this group of individuals if they had their own program? That is my point. I am not saying ex-studemts shouldn't start their own program (many already have), do whatever makes ya feel good, I am saying if fornits posters really wanted to pool their resources to make a difference, there would be better ways to go about this than the original idea posted.
In reality, an awareness campaign coming from a credible group would more likely save many more kids from abusive programs, than a 'haven program' for the selected few. There is already better options out there, why try and make a program-lite?
-
Heard of PURE ?
No I haven?t but that is a good point. A watch dog group would really benefit others (parents and kids) and eventually persuade some of the schools to change and/or soften. Feedback from previous students/inmates could be used to create an ideal and programs could be rated against this ideal, receiving an A ?thru- F in different categories.
Is this how you see it?
-
On 2006-03-06 11:13:00, TheWho wrote:
"Heard of PURE ?
No I haven?t but that is a good point. A watch dog group would really benefit others (parents and kids) and eventually persuade some of the schools to change and/or soften. Feedback from previous students/inmates could be used to create an ideal and programs could be rated against this ideal, receiving an A ?thru- F in different categories.
Is this how you see it?
"
"PURE" is just another referral business ran by Sue Scheff, ex-wwaspy and child-pimp extraordinaire! Her kid was put in wwasps, she bought into it hook, line and sinker, and then realized her kid was abused!
So, pulled the kid out, and siad 'OH WELL FIND GOOD "HEALING" programs' but ended up just referring kids to.. wherever, including "whitmore" in Utah.
Well, Whitmore had a psychotic mormon psycho there who molested and beat the children in her care, and Joyce Harris, aka wonderwoman shows up to tell us whats going on and beat the DA with a verbal bullwhip to make him do his job and not just let it pass unpunished.
So, no, PURE is no watchdog, its a fox watching the henhouse. And, self regulation is NO replacement for proper regulation by an outside body. If programs simply did what they "FELT" is best then youd get more of the usual program "we feel we should do this so we will" bullshit.
FACTUAL, evidential based regulation by medical professionals for actual treatment centers is all Id accept. And, well, programs and treatment centers arent really the same thing, as you should know by now!
Feedback from previous students/inmates could be used to create an ideal and programs could be rated against this ideal, receiving an A ?thru- F in different categories.
I figured I had to address this specifically...
Thats what we call bullshit, TW. You dont use feedback from students who are being manipulated by programs to make better programs! Even if somehow you could remove the programs bullshit from them and they spoke freely, youd just be setting up another structured teen warehouse with behavior modification elements. BM IS NOT THERAPY! MIND CONTROL AND BRAINWASHING IS NOT THERAPY! NEITHER ARE LGATS, SGATS, WORKSHOPS SEMINARS LIFESTEPS PROPHEETS OR RAPS!
A place with therapy, a school, and boarding facilities is the only thing we would accept, not a locked down enclave with culty bullshit, get it?[ This Message was edited by: Nihilanthic on 2006-03-06 13:33 ]
-
On 2006-03-06 13:30:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
So, no, PURE is no watchdog, its a fox watching the henhouse.
Yes, Sue followed the time honored program tradition of promising a "kinder, gentler" school, RTC, Behavior Mod or whatever euphemism they attach to it. Come to find out she's just another in a long line of supposed 'saviors' that just take the almighty $$$$ and refer to programs that pay. Even when Whitmore owners were under indictment for abuse she continuted to refer there.
-
That's not entirely true, and a sad fact about these places. Some do find medical staff to sign on to a harmful program, giving them appearable credibility.
Take Provo Canyon for instance. If you check out their staff page and you will see how many capital letters after names there are. They are also accredited by several organizations. My adolescent psychiatrist referred me there, about as professional as one can get. He just didn't know, he had never been there, they just mailed him brochures to keep around. Somehow the idea of going to an 'RTC' came up during my treatment, and that was the only brochure he had left. So the cookie crumbles.
I once saw a therapst (Back when people thought I was A.S :rofl: ) who had a former client end up at CEDU when he asked me what I did and I showed him my askquestions article. He read it all, and then told me rather solemnly that he had to reconcile what the kid told him with the facts I presented. He did then tell me that the former client said he "didnt like the way they did things" and wanted to go back to change them.
Well, all of that fell through the floor when I found out CEDU had closed down due to poor enrollment :tup: and I got to gloat about it to my therapist. He did say when he met with his colleagues hed share this... so, maybe I planted a seed of dissent and criticism here in NC. Maybe not.
My point is they WILL listen, but you have to present FACTS.
-
On 2006-03-06 13:30:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"
On 2006-03-06 11:13:00, TheWho wrote:
"Heard of PURE ?
No I haven?t but that is a good point. A watch dog group would really benefit others (parents and kids) and eventually persuade some of the schools to change and/or soften. Feedback from previous students/inmates could be used to create an ideal and programs could be rated against this ideal, receiving an A ?thru- F in different categories.
Is this how you see it?
"
"PURE" is just another referral business ran by Sue Scheff, ex-wwaspy and child-pimp extraordinaire! Her kid was put in wwasps, she bought into it hook, line and sinker, and then realized her kid was abused!
So, pulled the kid out, and siad 'OH WELL FIND GOOD "HEALING" programs' but ended up just referring kids to.. wherever, including "whitmore" in Utah.
Well, Whitmore had a psychotic mormon psycho there who molested and beat the children in her care, and Joyce Harris, aka wonderwoman shows up to tell us whats going on and beat the DA with a verbal bullwhip to make him do his job and not just let it pass unpunished.
So, no, PURE is no watchdog, its a fox watching the henhouse. And, self regulation is NO replacement for proper regulation by an outside body. If programs simply did what they "FELT" is best then youd get more of the usual program "we feel we should do this so we will" bullshit.
FACTUAL, evidential based regulation by medical professionals for actual treatment centers is all Id accept. And, well, programs and treatment centers arent really the same thing, as you should know by now!
Feedback from previous students/inmates could be used to create an ideal and programs could be rated against this ideal, receiving an A ?thru- F in different categories.
I figured I had to address this specifically...
Thats what we call bullshit, TW. You dont use feedback from students who are being manipulated by programs to make better programs! Even if somehow you could remove the programs bullshit from them and they spoke freely, youd just be setting up another structured teen warehouse with behavior modification elements. BM IS NOT THERAPY! MIND CONTROL AND BRAINWASHING IS NOT THERAPY! NEITHER ARE LGATS, SGATS, WORKSHOPS SEMINARS LIFESTEPS PROPHEETS OR RAPS!
A place with therapy, a school, and boarding facilities is the only thing we would accept, not a locked down enclave with culty bullshit, get it?[ This Message was edited by: Nihilanthic on 2006-03-06 13:33 ]"
I think they were refering to a watch dog organization, rating schools, not biulding one, feedback from kids would help.
-
On 2006-03-06 05:54:00, Anonymous wrote:
"My kid is 19 and heading for college. He has no reason to lie to me about anything treatment-related. Perhaps Carlbrook has changed the model enough that they aren't "mind-fucks", as you call them. Perhaps they are valuable tools for the kids. I'm just telling you what my anti-therapy, anti-program kid, who is very assertive and NOT easily influenced by anyone, has to say.
As for isolation- I will agree that many of the distractions of the outside world were removed. There was some access to newspapers and news, but not a whole lot. There were some trips into "town" for dinner, movies, medical appointments.
This place was not a jail. My son was bent out of shape because he didn't have internet access or a cell phone. One of the benefits of going to wilderness first is that you learn that you don't really need those things.
If you recall, my position is that wilderness (at least the program my son attended) is an incredible and necessary therapeutic intervention. When Carlbrook sends kids back to wilderness it is to allow them to work on specific issues which prevented them from remaining in the community.
Karen"
What a load! You did nothing but regurgitate the typical program boilerplate, but say nothing of any substance - you did however use a lot of feelings based words!
"He liked the workshops I can't answer your specific questions about them." <- you said it all, Karen, you really have. All you know are feelings but dont have so much as a single FACT About anything.
You denigrate any complaints by making a strawman about how he was 'bent out of shape having no internet or cellphone' without addressing what we had to say, AND you dont give a reason why he shouldnt have either. As much money as a RTC costs, why cant he have those relatively cheap means of communication?
If you recall, my position is that wilderness (at least the program my son attended) is an incredible and necessary therapeutic intervention. When Carlbrook sends kids back to wilderness it is to allow them to work on specific issues which prevented them from remaining in the community.
There you go, more feelings based bullshit with no facts. Wat does wilderness do, and how does it do it? How do you work on 'specific issues' (is there any other way to work on anything? How does a wilderness thing let you do that?
Why is it 'incredible' and 'necessary'? Do you just like saying those stupid feelings words?
Based on the SPECIFIC things Ive heard from people with facts and details, its nothing more than a punishment for not walking the line.
And, well, finally:Perhaps Carlbrook has changed the model enough that they aren't "mind-fucks", as you call them. Perhaps they are valuable tools for the kids. I'm just telling you what my anti-therapy, anti-program kid, who is very assertive and NOT easily influenced by anyone, has to say.
You say perhaps a lot. Youre telling us what you want it to be, or what you want it to be for the sake of arguement, but not what it IS!
Have *YOU* been through any seminars or workshops? You sure sound like it!
How would you know if they changed the model enough? Changing isnt good enough, the bullshit has to be TOTALLY removed for it to be ok!
Anti-therapy, anti-program kid... so why did you throw him in a program? How do you know hes one? You say hes 'assertive and not easily influenced' (there we go with more buzzwords like assertive...) yet we've said from the very beginning that programs are designed to break people down and remold their minds. So, whats the point of saying that? Just trying to make yourself feel better?
Programs can break down the toughest individuals and make them say what they want you to:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awa ... hology.htm (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/pathology.htm)
http://nospank.net/bean.htm (http://nospank.net/bean.htm)
http://nospank.net/lile.htm (http://nospank.net/lile.htm)
Even the trained psychologists sitting through a seminar in the first link admitted they were influenced by it, no matter how hard they tried to remain as observors. TRAINED PSYCHOLOGISTS got shook up by it, an uninformed child is easy prey.
Karen, go get off the feelings boat and learn how to use facts again. The age of reason started centuries ago, you're a little late to the party.
-
I think they were refering to a watch dog organization, rating schools, not biulding one, feedback from kids would help.
Sure, feedback would be great AFTER you remove all of the bullshit that might inflence what they have to say, all the isolation from the outside world, all the LGAT seminars of all names and sizes, and all the mind control elements and stupid 'structure' and rules.
Basically, when its a boarding school with therapy that only tkaes the few children that NEED it, and tell the hypocondriac, drama-queen or abandoning parents to take a hike, you can use feedback from kids to improve it. But not while they could get punished for complaining about a specific staffer, BY that staffer, or thrown in OP or a seminar or the "wilderness" for not 'working the program' by complaining about it, its a waste of time.
PS - dont quote LONG posts to make a one line statement, please?
-
I'll second that one Niles. My current shrink and the one I saw before I got sent to ASR have responded similarly. The one who I saw before ASR was somewhat reluctant to accept my story, since it was all new information. However, as soon as I found some common ground, this changed dramatically. He didn't know what a Lifestep was, but when I detailed their similarities to the LGAT's that were developed by Werner Erhard, he was able to look at ASR objectively, and acknowledge that their practices WERE harmful. My current shrink was much more receptive, and actually had more information on the topic than I did, such as where the ideas for LGAT's and some of the types of therapy used in these facilities. In turn, as I explained in more and more detail, just what I'd been put through, he started to spread the word to his colleagues. I can't say how effective it will be, but at the very least, a handful of mental health professionals will be informed of just what sorts of treatment are prevalent in these facilities, and hopefully they will in turn spread the word to others. At least I know that I've been successful in educating a handful of mental health professionals, and at least none of THEIR patients will be referred to these places.
-
Some of us help specific kids, regularly, *and* criticize bad "help" that isn't here on Fornits.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing.
Every time I talk to a parent about *not* using a Program, I recommend that they get their kid good, situation-appropriate, *reputable* help for their kid's problems.
That is doing a positive thing for those kids. It's getting them help that has a good track record for actually helping *without* the taint of a bunch of survivors alleging abuse.
Part of the reason I find these abuse allegations so easy to believe is that they are so reminiscent of the documented abuses that took place in mental hospitals for adults before the courts ruled that mental patients had to be provided treatment in the least restrictive environment.
When people can't leave a facility, you get a lot of these kinds of abuses--it's a facet of human nature amply demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiments.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton
Once they ensured that prisoners and mental patients could not have their mail stopped---except for very short periods (usually less than a month) for mental patients if their psychiatrist felt certain correspondence would be harmful to that specific patient.
The "least restrictive environment" requirement enabled patients to appeal commitments, or appeal a commitment continuing, and increased the risk that abusers would get caught out by a patient an independent expert, retained by the patient or a loved one, had just ruled competent.
Bad places got shut down. Bad caregivers got shut out as bad risks for legal liability.
Unless, of course, you're a teenager whose parents have already decided they're totally screwed up. Then, because you can't legally challenge the commitment, and neither can other loved ones, and can't get examined by an independent expert---it's easy for the bad eggs to stay working in the system, owning the facilities, running the facilities.
The same old bad eggs, recycled over and over, running the same old fatally dysfunctional Program.
Kids that are addicted or mentally ill need treatment. Kids that are criminal need to be put away, humanely, where they can't hurt others and humanely rehabilitated if that's at all possible.
Kids whose disabilities seriously impact learning in ways that mainstreaming doesn't help may need boarding schools with a directed curriculum and special services.
By directed curriculum, I do *not* mean so-called "emotional growth."
Kids from horribly dysfunctional families may need therapy and schooling away from their fucked-up parents.
The Program---and it's all the same Program in every way that matters---is not an appropriate remedy for any of these problems.
Stockholm Syndrome and coercive persuasion and LGATs (or SGATs), invariably delivered in a one-size-fits-all machine--regardless of what is advertized, are no substitute for genuinely helpful, reputable responses, treatments, and solutions.
Advocating good, responsible treatment, targetted to the individual problems a specific patient has, is not a negative. It's a positive.
All patients (whether addicts or drug abusers, physically disabled, or mentally ill) deserve individually appropriate treatment in the least restrictive environment.
All special needs students deserve individually appropriate education in the least restrictive environment.
All people who misbehave criminally deserve humane punishment. All juveniles who misbehave criminally deserve humane punishment targetted towards rehabilitation.
The Programs can't deliver that.
We will not get a majority of facilities that serve adolescent people become quality facilities that are able to deliver, and able to send home people who need to go home, until we apply the least restrictive environment test to attendance at a residential facility in ways that give the child a right to a court-assigned representative to represent the child's best interests where they may diverge from the interests of the parents.
Parents should not have a "right" to place a child in a facility. They should be allowed to try to place the child in a facility if they believe it's in the child's best interests, but if the child disagrees, they should have the right to challenge the parental/facility assessment in family court.
If the determination of the court is that the parents are so opposed to the child remaining in the home that it is adverse to the child's interests to return there, and at the same time a facility is not the least restrictive environment able to effectively serve the child's needs, then the child should be placed in foster care and the parents assessed child support payments.
Too expensive? Not really. For one thing, parents are more likely to second-guess themselves if they know the courts will be second-guessing them. For another, the parents won't be allowed to dodge child support obligations. For a third, we provide these services to adults to protect *them* from bad care, the least we can do is afford our children the same protection.
Sticking your kid in an institution is a world away from sending him to the Boy Scouts' summer camp, or parochial school, or telling him whether he can play soccer or has to play baseball or be in the chess club.
Sticking your kid in an institution is a world away from spanking his butt or grounding him for getting in a fight with the neighbor kid or staying out after curfew. Spanking your kid on the butt with your hand is miles away from beating
Parental power over their children has limits to what is legitimate, and limits to what is legal. Unlimited, unchecked power to institutionalize the child is leaving children with lifelong injury in the form of PTSD.
Parents must not be allowed to permanently, seriously injure their children in the name of "saving" them. Morally, the parents have no right.
Now we just have to bring the law in line with morality. When we can get kids placed for bad reason, or no reason, or placed wrongly, *out* just by providing them an advocate with the legal power to go before the judge on the child's behalf to contest the placement, we'll be able to shut the Programs down through attrition.
Quality, appropriate care in the least restrictive environment.
That's a positive, not a negative.
Julie
-
Er...first sentence:
bad "help" that isn't help
Julie
-
Julie, two questions with what you said.
What is "humane punishment" and how does that help them? Deterrance? Warehousing so they cant commit more crimes?
And, I doubt you'll find spanking support on fornits. Pain, fear and humiliation based treatment doesnt work... regardless of the intensity or duration :razz:
-
On 2006-03-06 16:50:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"Julie, two questions with what you said.
What is "humane punishment" and how does that help them? Deterrance? Warehousing so they cant commit more crimes?
And, I doubt you'll find spanking support on fornits. Pain, fear and humiliation based treatment doesnt work... regardless of the intensity or duration :razz: "
First, I don't care if I find spanking support. It's legal, and I don't support making it illegal. Yes, it works, and there is a huge difference between spanking versus beating a kid with hairbrush, or a wooden spoon, or an electrical cord, or punching the kid out.
I don't live for the support of other people on Fornits, I have my own opinions.
"If everyone in the room is thinking the same thing, somebody is not thinking."
There is a huge difference between grounding a kid for a few days or, for serious offenses, for a couple of weeks, versus institutionalizing them in a facility.
I mean incarceration that is not cruel and unusual punishment, by which I generally mean what the courts are currently saying, because I'm pretty much in agreement with that. The exception would be that I think prisoners need to be better protected from each other.
There is *some* deterrence effect, but primarily incarceration serves to separate people who abuse the person or property of others from their potential victims. I'm entirely in favor of that, but I also believe the duration of incarceration should fit the crime.
I do not support incarceration for victimless, socially offensive behavior.
Again, I have my own opinions, I am not open to attempts at persuasion on these two particular issues, and I don't care if I "find support" here or elsewhere for them.
Everyone has the right to an opinion, even though some opinions are better or more poorly informed than others. The particular opinions I've just stated are mine.
I oppose parents institutionalizing their children in Behavior Modification Programs. That's my own opinion, not some bandwagon I jumped on.
I don't do bandwagons.
Julie
-
Hm. Well, as someone who was spanked as a kid, I think I can safely say that it didn't do a damn thing for me in the discipline department. It normally just made me more riled up and angry. Gasoline on a fire, to be sure. One time I was being really hyper, and my mom spanked me and threw me in the backyard and locked the door to blow off steam. Now, I have no problem with sending a kid to the backyard, (just as long as its fenced in) to wind down and work off all that energy, but I think the spanking beforehand set me off, and I ended up smashing in one of the windows. That was basically a perfect example of what spankings did for me.
I'm sure other kids can be more subdued or quieted after a spanking, but I think they just end up repressing all of that anger that I just exploded out when it happened to me. It was really funny actually, what a chain reaction it would cause. I'd get a spanking, then I'd freak out, then I'd get another spanking for freaking out, then I'd freak out even more, then another one, freak out times three, then at some point I would be locked in my room and I would end up trashing something of my own. (Normally, if I was left out of my room, I'd end up trashing something of my mom's; normally something I made her as a gift. There were quite a few popsicle stick baskets that bit the dust.) My other favorite thing to do as revenge was to throw her bra (which she left out after washing so it wouldn't shrink) in the garbage. Have no idea what THAT was all about. ("Bad mommy, I'm going to ruin your undergarments.")
Mom was fond of slapping me in the face, too. (One time she actually took a huge book and just slammed it across my face.) Anyway, when I was a teen and got bigger than her, she slapped me in the face one time and I just punched her. She was shocked and just flailed and started kicking me, and I kicked her back. She stopped hitting me after that.
So word to the wise, if you are fond of spanking and slapping, stop doing it before the kids get bigger and stronger than you, or you might get socked.
Besides that, I really don't think spanking is as much about discipline as it is about the parent venting anger and frustration out on the child. In other words, that whole "This hurts me more than it does you." is a bunch of bullshit.
_________________
"Learn from your mistakes so that one day you can repeat them precisely."
-Trevor Goodchild
[ This Message was edited by: sorry... try another castle on 2006-03-07 11:30 ]
-
If my parents spanked me like yours spanked you, I'd be against it, too.
My parents spanked me rarely, virtually always when I'd done something I knew was against the rules, didn't generally have stupid rules, and very rarely spanked in anger.
The times they made mistakes made me extra careful about making sure Katie knew something was against the rules before she did it or I wouldn't spank, that spanking was rare because it was only done for things that were a very big deal, and that we don't spank in anger.
Anyway, given your experiences, I can see why you feel as you do.
Julie
-
How can you NOT spank in anger? What other cornucopia of moods go with spanking, exactly?
As Roseanne said "When would you spank otherwise? When you are feeling particularly festive?"
-
Julie... no offence but Ive yet to see a shred of evidence spanking works. People do it becuase someone else did it before them, and nobodys been able to seperate the sparking effect from the variable of 'growing up because theyre... kids that are growing up!'.
Furthermore, spanking becuase its legal is foolish. Programs are legal too! Doenst make it right, or even effective.
Not trying to jump on some bandwagon here, but... Ive yet to see its efficacy demonstrated, at all, period! Its a fear/humiliation/pain based punishment thats only differentiated from any other sort of coersion when viewed subjectively.
Personally, when I was spanked (very, very hard, with a hand or a belt) it didnt work. I just got humiliated and angry. I now carry a lot of repressed resentment, though that probably has more to do with the social problems I finally grew out of in late highschool/college - but I seriously doubt setting up a loophole of a 'pop on the bottom' that just turns into a subjectively defined, rictualized and legally approved version of influcting pain (aka torture) is going to benefit anyone in the long run.
To put it simply, if spanking works, why do people have to keep spanking the kid until they grow up?
-
I am pretty much neutral on this subject. I was spanked as a child, very occasionally and lightly. I don?t look back on it as a traumatic experience and it was meant to keep me in line, which it did. I would think twice before stepping out of line (breaking the rules). My parents didn?t do it out of anger or to sooth a rage. They felt it needed to be done when certain boundaries/rules were broken. I didn?t/don?t spank my kids, although, they get time outs, which works the same. This actions could both be viewed, by some, as abuse, humiliation etc. one physical the other mental but I believe at least one or the other is needed to teach a child consequences.
-
QUOTE Personally, when I was spanked (very, very hard, with a hand or a belt) it didnt work. I just got humiliated and angry. I now carry a lot of repressed resentment . . . END QUOTE
Your resentment is repressed?!!!!! Glory Halleluia!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
The whole point of this discussion is still in the title of the thread. So far we've debated the merits of Carlbrook, the veracity of various posters' opinions, the efficacy and morality of spanking, and forming watchdog groups. So I must ask: Does anybody have anything to say about the potential role that those of us on Fornits might have in designing better programs than the ones in question? Whether we should start one, whether we should be advisors to medical professionals, whatever. I'd just love to hear some ideas on why we should or shouldn't, should we all go get doctorates first, do we even need degrees/etc. I'm praying somebody out there is more interested in this than in personal attacks and pointless tangents.
So again, I reiterate: Why don't WE make a program? Discuss, discuss.
-
because you are the fringe elements of society
-
On 2006-03-07 17:46:00, Goodtobefree wrote:
So again, I reiterate: Why don't WE make a program? Discuss, discuss."
Why WOULD we? I have absolutely NO interest in that.
-
There are reputable drug rehabs that take 100 days or less---which is pretty much my touchstone for a reasonable rehab based on what I've read from the way the feds keep statistics on effectiveness. This is not because I have any great respect for the feds, but because they seem to be keeping track of the results in ways that pass my sniff test for scientific validity.
There are reputable RTCs for mentally ill people that are based on the medical model. They get people who are dangerous (as a result of serious organic brain disorders) stabilized if they can be stabilized, when it takes longer than short term hospitals, so that they can go home on a good, solid medication regimen.
There are juvie jails for kids who have been convicted of serious offenses. I wish no kids were dangerous enough to other people or their property to need to be taken out of society for awhile, but wishful thinking won't do the trick. At least juvie jail--real juvie jail---is more humane than the Programs for kids that commit crimes. At least juvie jail *tries* to educate them so they can make something of themselves when they get out. And juvie jail confines them, true, but they get their mail and juvie jail leaves off the stupid mind control crap.
There are private boarding schools with specialized curriculum for people with specific learning disabilities. For example, for kids with a number of learning disabilities, one of the high-quality multi-sensory curriculums does wonders.
There are private facilities for kids with autism, or kids with mental retardation.
There is nothing that requires a live in facility for which there aren't *already* specific live-in facilities that are *not* the Seed-format Program rehashed all over again.
Julie
-
On 2006-03-07 17:50:00, Anonymous wrote:
"because you are the fringe elements of society"
:rofl: :rofl: Thats why I love it here so much.
-
What you all dont seem to grasp is we're just as legally qualified to make a program as the other programs creators are, and practically tenfold as qualified as they will ever be!
We just wont becuase its wrong to enforce a mind control regime on someone.
I still say we could make a killing just letting them play games all day and take them on field trips with the 5K tuition :silly:
-
I think most of us just get it without any explanation necessary, but for the program parents out there...It's WRONG to PLAY GOD with YOUR CHILDREN!!!
-
On 2006-03-07 15:47:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"Julie... no offence but Ive yet to see a shred of evidence spanking works. People do it becuase someone else did it before them, and nobodys been able to seperate the sparking effect from the variable of 'growing up because theyre... kids that are growing up!'.
Furthermore, spanking becuase its legal is foolish. Programs are legal too! Doenst make it right, or even effective.
Not trying to jump on some bandwagon here, but... Ive yet to see its efficacy demonstrated, at all, period! Its a fear/humiliation/pain based punishment thats only differentiated from any other sort of coersion when viewed subjectively.
Personally, when I was spanked (very, very hard, with a hand or a belt) it didnt work. I just got humiliated and angry. I now carry a lot of repressed resentment, though that probably has more to do with the social problems I finally grew out of in late highschool/college - but I seriously doubt setting up a loophole of a 'pop on the bottom' that just turns into a subjectively defined, rictualized and legally approved version of influcting pain (aka torture) is going to benefit anyone in the long run.
To put it simply, if spanking works, why do people have to keep spanking the kid until they grow up?"
Spanking the kid until they grow up? Huh?
My parents spanked me less and less, until by the time I was eight or nine I rarely did anything bad enough to get a spanking, and by the time I was ten or eleven, just about never. I also got to where my attention span was long enough that grounding was more effective, so *if* I did something to get in big trouble, I'd get grounded. By high school, mostly I'd just occasionally get grounded from the phone.
I got spanked once for getting on Daddy's desk (where I could have really screwed up the family's bills in pre-internet days when that was a big thing), once for playing in a cow-befouled creek (again) when my mom had told me not to because she was afraid I'd get really sick, once for writing in another kid's schoolbooks, once for hitting Mommy when I was about five or six.
Things like that.
I got far more timeouts than I ever got spankings.
I got far more talking-to's than I ever got spankings.
I got my face slapped innumerable times for sassing or talking back to my mom. I don't approve of that, and I've never slapped my child's face. Honestly, I'm not real sure why Katie doesn't smart-mouth me or her dad. She just doesn't. She has, I guess, when she was little and when she's gone through cantankerous phases, but not so much. She just doesn't do that.
My parents made some spanking mistakes, and they made some other kinds of mistakes. I don't resent the spanking mistakes any more than I resent some of the other mistakes. Mostly, I'm glad they weren't as screwed up as some of my friends' parents. And I have compassion for their eccentricities, even though those caused me some problems, because I know the root causes of those now.
I'm sure if they'd beaten me or spanked me for no reason or trivial reasons I'd feel differently. And I *do* disapprove of face-slapping for verbal snarkiness. My mom learned that from her mom, it was counter-productive, and so I just don't do it with my kid.
My Katie is ten years old. I can't remember the last time she did anything that meritted a spanking, neither can she, neither can James. She's a good kid. I don't think the parents of the neighborhood bully across the street spank. She sure needs one. She hits other kids, first, when she doesn't get her way and expects that she's not going to get hit back. That's not just me thinking my Katie's a little angel---neighborhood parents have compared notes.
If her parents would spank her at home when she hits other kids out in the neighborhood, she'd stop. Just scolding her when they catch her in a lie, and most of the time just believing her without doing any skeptical digging to find out the full picture of what happened, isn't working.
They don't spank, so what she's learned is not that people don't hit or that big people hit littler people. She doesn't just hit littler people---Katie's twice her size and could take her apart, Katie just *knows* she could really injure the other little girl and flat won't--she'll hit her back, but she's not hitting in a way that risks injuring her. This kid hits Katie, first---and I have accounts from disinterested neighbor kids with no reason to lie.
The other little girl has learned that she can hit other people with impunity and nobody can hit her back---or if someone does hit her back, that's the person that gets in trouble, not her.
Her parents not spanking her isn't teaching her non-violence. It's teaching her that its okay for her to dish it out and not okay for anybody to pass it back. That is a kid with one *sad* future, if she doesn't somehow learn better. She's not learning it from her parents. She's got them snowed.
There are more important things about how you raise a kid than whether you spank or not.
If parents do spank, and they're applying it right, kids have generally outgrown real brattiness by eight or nine. Sure, they still get into mischief, but mostly just "house rules" kinds of infractions---not stuff that disrespects other people or harms them or their stuff.
Just about all the families in my subculture spanked their kids, with just about the limits and rarity I've described, and had well-mannered, empathic, non-bratty kids by age eight or nine. Kids that went through varying degrees of typical adolescent turmoil---usually the mild variants---before becoming well-mannered, empathic, non-bratty adults.
Some of the most rotten kids had parents who didn't spank, but that was because when I was growing up a lot of the parents who didn't spank also overindulged their kids and tried to be their kids' friends instead of their kids' parents.
In my generation, I know parents who don't spank who also don't overindulge their kids and are loving parents, but are definitely the parents rather than trying to be their kids' friends. Those parents generally manage to have kids that aren't awful.
There's so much more to being a good parent than whether you never spank versus spanking rarely.
Most of the differences I've seen between good parents and horrible ones has had little to do with that one, small, discipline tactic.
Again, I'm not at all surprised when kids of parents who used spanking *very badly* decide not to use it at all.
My mom was always clear when she spanked that she loved me and because she loved me was not going to let me grow up to be rotten. Or wasn't going to let me do things that were stupidly unsafe. Almost always when I was spanked I really had just done something rotten or really unsafe.
Even the slapping, even though I don't agree with it and don't do it---I have to admit I had a really sharp tongue and could really flay people with nasty, scathing sarcasm. Getting self control over what I said to people sooner rather than later probably made me more pleasant for other people to be around. I still don't approve, but in Mom's defense, she had a point.
My Katie has never really gotten into using words as a weapon like I did.
Anyway, I'm tired so I'm rambling.
Again, Niles, most of the parents I know who spank who are garden variety decent parents *don't* have to keep spanking until their kids are grown. For most of us, the bad behavior that really impinges on others has been trained out in favor of good manners at a fairly young age and spanking becomes basically needless. Grounding, or limited grounding like from phone or TV, or scolding, works fine for stupid shite like breaking curfew too badly or not doing assigned chores.
Mostly, I don't tell Katie to do unreasonable things, and she does what I tell her to. I try to tell her, a lot, how much I appreciate her for being such a good kid. I try to make sure she knows how doing what I ask is something that will inherently benefit her. For example, learning how to do a particular chore helps her learn how to take care of herself so she can be independent. Learning good manners or good social skills helps her learn to behave the way adults expect our adult friends to behave towards us, so that the people she likes will like her back, and so forth.
There are much bigger deals in parenting than spank sometimes or spank never.
Julie
-
Thats nice... but you still didnt demonstrate that spanking did anything that growing up through childhood or the other things your parents employed did not do.
No offence but you just basically babbled at me with nothing of substance to support the point that it works.
You might as well spank someone for cold symptoms and spank less as the cold symptoms go away and stop when theyre gone and say the spanking did it.
-
The only kind of spanking that works is when you ask for it nicely from your top. And be sure to say "please daddy"
Oh wait, did I reveal too much with that statement? Shame on me!
_________________
"Learn from your mistakes so that one day you can repeat them precisely."
-Trevor Goodchild
-
Julie- two things. Wait until your darling Katie goes through puberty!
More importantly, you detailed types of programs (rehab, juvie, mental health facilities etc). You said these would cover everyone with no need for these so-called emotional growth facilities.
We may have finally gotten at the core of our disagreement. Many kids do NOT fit into any of these categories. I know mine did not. He would have been greatly harmed by ANY of the options listed in your post. This is why the emotional growth industry has developed and why quality programs of this type are needed.
Another point- you all continue to ignore the fact that (going back to the original post and the point of the thread) Grant Price and the Merritts did exactly that with Carlbrook- they started a program based on what they thought needed to be different based on their experiences in a program. They did JUST what the OP is advocating, but continue to be slammed as operating some sort of abusive facility. These three guys went through the whole deal- being taken away, wanting to run away from Cascade, challenging the program....
-
Hey, I have an idea, let's make every single thread on the fornits website about Carlbrook.
-
What is it with you? This thread began with the question of former students maybe getting together and starting a school with their knowledge of the good and bad of other places. Like it or not, that is how Carlbrook was founded. Start another thread like "let's just piss and moan." The Carlbrook promoters don't really care about anything else but getting the word out that they believe Carlbrook is good and different.
-
On 2006-03-08 07:03:00, Anonymous wrote:
This thread began with the question of former students maybe getting together and starting a school with their knowledge of the good and bad of other places.
Most of us reject that notion outright.
Like it or not, that is how Carlbrook was founded.
Yeah, that's how most of them are founded. They all promise to be the kinder, gentler program. Same shit, different wrapper although maybe dressed up a bit more.
Start another thread like "let's just piss and moan."
No.
The Carlbrook promoters don't really care about anything else but getting the word out that they believe Carlbrook is good and different. "
And if they do that here, we'll counter them every time.
-
The Carlbrook promoters don't really care about anything else but getting the word out that they believe Carlbrook is good and different.
Yes, and they all seem to have wound up at fornits.
-
Yes, because some parents like to "google" Carlbrook while there kids are there to make sure there's nothing they don't know about that could be happening there that might show up on the net. This thread comes up near the top. What parent or prospective parent wouldn't do that? It may or may not have been you that said in an earlier post that this was a survivor site. You don't know that when you hit the link to get here. Would you be pleased to hear that Carlbrook MIGHT be a good place or are you here just to piss and moan? Is fornits open to all or not? Nobody told me I couldn't come here and when I read this Topic Title I thought it was a good place to discuss the "C" word. The Topic Title could have read "Why don't WE make a program that's not like Carlbrook." I would not have bothered even looking at it.
-
And if they do that here, we'll counter them every time."
[/quote]
Have you been a student, parent or staff member there? If not, then your opion has no relevance.
-
Most of us reject that notion outright.
Then why do you keep coming back here. It's the place Carlbrook supporters will be automatically drawn to.
-
On 2006-03-08 07:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
Then why do you keep coming back here. It's the place Carlbrook supporters will be automatically drawn to."
I come back here because I like to.
What's the first place Carlbrook supporters are drawn to...Fornits? I find that hard to believe with how they get spanked every time they post.[ This Message was edited by: Eudora on 2006-03-08 09:23 ]
-
The first place is the Carlbrook Website. I find it fascinating that Carlbrook is so vehemently supported and defended. You don't see that with ANY of the other schools except maybe a little bit with Swift River. It might be a good place, but unless YOU have been there, you'll never know. This is beginning to remind me of "racial profiling."
-
You know what I haven't heard a lot about? Carlbrook. Why doesn't anyone talk about that school? It would be nice to know what the plusses and minuses were.
_________________
"Learn from your mistakes so that one day you can repeat them precisely."
-Trevor Goodchild
[ This Message was edited by: sorry... try another castle on 2006-03-08 08:17 ]
-
Could be that Carlbrook has a little different student and parent body? Perhaps it IS a different type of place and merits defending? Perhaps because it is relatively new and has no evil history?
-
Look at the Carlbrook thread. There are at least two parents posting there. The school is only a few years old. There was lots of info. given by a guy who had a son actually graduate from there. The jury is still out. But, don't you at least HOPE the place is OK or are you just hoping to prove your side. I'm hoping for the kids that are there that the founders have developed a program that cobines elements that actually work for at least some of the kids.
-
On 2006-03-08 08:33:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Look at the Carlbrook thread. There are at least two parents posting there. The school is only a few years old. There was lots of info. given by a guy who had a son actually graduate from there. The jury is still out. But, don't you at least HOPE the place is OK or are you just hoping to prove your side. I'm hoping for the kids that are there that the founders have developed a program that cobines elements that actually work for at least some of the kids."
I'm hoping for a day when all parents realise that it's their responsibility to raise their kids and not look for someplace to ship 'em off to to do what the parents should have done in the first place.
-
On 2006-03-08 06:04:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Julie- two things. Wait until your darling Katie goes through puberty!
More importantly, you detailed types of programs (rehab, juvie, mental health facilities etc). You said these would cover everyone with no need for these so-called emotional growth facilities.
We may have finally gotten at the core of our disagreement. Many kids do NOT fit into any of these categories. I know mine did not. He would have been greatly harmed by ANY of the options listed in your post. This is why the emotional growth industry has developed and why quality programs of this type are needed.
Another point- you all continue to ignore the fact that (going back to the original post and the point of the thread) Grant Price and the Merritts did exactly that with Carlbrook- they started a program based on what they thought needed to be different based on their experiences in a program. They did JUST what the OP is advocating, but continue to be slammed as operating some sort of abusive facility. These three guys went through the whole deal- being taken away, wanting to run away from Cascade, challenging the program....
"
See, that's your problem in a nutshell. You have no reason to think my kid will be anything but average-okay as a teenager.
You just have to think that's going to happen to other people, because you're wedded to the notion that it "just happened" to you and your kid and wasn't the result of you being a fucked up parent.
I will say even good parents can have a wild child, but when I do, I'm just saying that. I don't really mean it. Or, more to the point, I only mean it for a very small, specific subset.
Every wild child I ever knew had parents who were ultra-permissive, were ultra-controlling, or were just plain actively-unstable insane.
The only time you get good parents who have a wild child is when the kid was adopted or fostered and already had serious problems when he arrived in their care *or* when the kid came down with a mental illness and the parents had no clue what they were dealing with or what to do about it.
We're stable. We have moderate and sensible rules. We enforce them consistently. Our daughter already (unfortunately) has a mental illness and we're on top of it.
You say "your darling Katie" as if we think she could do no wrong. Nope, that's not us, and all our friends and neighbors in the community know that's not us.
Everybody in the neighborhood knows that we're the kind of people that if they have a problem with us, or our kid, or our dog barking, or a loud party, or whatever, that they can come right to the door and talk to us and we'll work with them to be good neighbors. Everybody in the neighborhood knows that if we have a problem with them, they're not going to hear about it in gossip that gets back to them, or have the cops called on their kid or their loud party or their loose dog. They know we'll go talk to them about it and work it out.
Our daughter's school knows that if they have a problem, they can call us, or email us, or send a note home and we'll get with them and work it out.
We're not perfect. Our kid's not perfect. Like most of our neighbors and our friends down at the dojo, we're just average, good folks.
The parents of the real wild children in high school were not average, good folks. Those parents were *noticeably* screwed up to the eyes of their kids, the other kids, and the other parents in the community.
Not everybody saw it, but in every case you had other kids and other parents quietly commenting how screwy those parents were. Before the kid went wild.
I grew up in a small town city. People knew other people's business. The parents whose kids went wild as teens---you could see it coming a mile off, years before it happened.
Since you say your kid didn't need to be in a mental hospital, then you're not a parent it "just happened" to. Your neighbors and your kid's peers saw it coming a mile off. They wouldn't have said it to you because they wouldn't have wanted to make your problems their problems.
If your kid is your bio child, then you were either ultra-permissive, a control freak, or were totally wack.
Our Katie isn't perfect and won't be perfect. We love her, but she isn't a little angel who can do no wrong. She's just an average, pretty-good kid.
If I want you to think that our Katie is going to have problems, it's only because you desperately need to think that your kid's problems were something that just happened to you instead of happening because you were fucked up and you screwed up.
Every average, decent parent of a teenager has their kid make a certain number of the usual teenage mistakes. Difference is, how much trouble, how bad, and whether the parents react proportionally and sanely to the problems.
If your kid didn't fit one of those categories, he didn't need to be institutionalized. So either you're a control freak, a formerly ultra-permisssive who panicked, or just plain wack.
What your kid needed, if he didn't fit one of those categories, was to be out of your house and under the roof of moderate, average, responsible, sane foster parents in their own home.
I've seen a lot of wild kids, and I'm just going based on what I knew about the parents of all the dangerously wild kids I ever knew.
For ninety percent plus of them, putting them under the roof and in the care of sane, responsible, foster parents--with a good social worker to help the transition as they settled in with each other--would have cured ninety percent of what ailed them.
Julie
-
On 2006-03-05 11:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Instead of abuse, beatings, isolation and all the other cultist dogshit that is inflicted on teenagers, why don't the members of Fornits pool their resources to make a place where kids are given love, attention, respect, and other things they badly need?
Consider it for a moment. Why should we allow these shiteaters the full run of the entire teen-help industry? What's stopping us from giving parents an alternative and maybe saving a shitload of kids?
Why don't we provide a real haven?"
That's what we've been doing for more than 20 years. We only have 3 full time, permanent clients. Occasionally, we get to serve a couple of others on a part time basis. The program is almost entirely voluntary, though there are certain laws and stipulations that require us to provide basic care and certain others that mandate minimal compliance on the part of clients. For instance, if the clients engage in criminal behavior or very risky behavior and we are unable to bring them into line, the state or some other program similar to ours will step in. The clients have some limited choice, inasmuch as their age and aptitude allow them some autonomy.
This is a long term, privately funded program. We expect to remain in operation on the first tier for at least another decade or so. If we do a good job, we'll likely get part time referrals from our current clients as they, themselves, take on clients of their own.
We don't get paid for this at all, except in personal satisfaction and enduring affection (not trauma bonds). We bankroll the whole thing from our own earnings. We expect to get paid in kind when we're too old and feeble to care for ourselves. By then, any second tier part time clients may have clients of their own. So we may even be able to assist in the capacity of consultants. Maybe not, though. Maybe we'll just sit back, fart loudly, laugh till our dentures fly across the room and just keep on having a good time. We'll just have to play it by ear.
Yes, this is a riddle. Can anyone guess the answer? I tried not to work for, you know, anyone who ate children with their bare hands. I won't pretend that I was ideologically consistent.
--Dick Morris; Political consultant for Bill Clinton, Trent Lott and Tom Ridge
-
On 2006-03-08 09:22:00, Eudora wrote:
Yes, this is a riddle. Can anyone guess the answer?
Ooooo, ooo, ooo....Mista Kotter! I know! I know!
-
Julie- I actually feel sorry for darling Katie. You are in for a big shock when she goes through the NORMAL emotions and behavior of puberty.
How do you explain families with ONE out of control teen where the other kids behave within the norms of society? Bad parenting of just this one kid?
Yep, there are plenty of bad parents out there- I fall into that category in many ways. However, not all kids with bad parents steal, abuse substances and get kicked out of school. The issue is- once the teen is in trouble (no matter whether it is due to poor parenting, peer pressure, the brain functions of the kid, whatever) what is the best course of action. I absolutely know that YOU are in no position to make this call or criticize a parent until you stand in their shoes.
-
On 2006-03-08 09:35:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Julie- I actually feel sorry for darling Katie. You are in for a big shock when she goes through the NORMAL emotions and behavior of puberty.
How do you explain families with ONE out of control teen where the other kids behave within the norms of society? Bad parenting of just this one kid?
Yep, there are plenty of bad parents out there- I fall into that category in many ways. However, not all kids with bad parents steal, abuse substances and get kicked out of school. The issue is- once the teen is in trouble (no matter whether it is due to poor parenting, peer pressure, the brain functions of the kid, whatever) what is the best course of action. I absolutely know that YOU are in no position to make this call or criticize a parent until you stand in their shoes."
Well I have. With two kids. Been through more than I care to think about with them and never once considered resorting to shipping one of them off somewhere. I don't shirk my responsibilities.
-
For instance, if the clients engage in criminal behavior or very risky behavior and we are unable to bring them into line, the state or some other program similar to ours will step in.
What if a group was formed which could step in and help or take over if their present program fails to work and move the child to a safe environment if needed. They could work to help get the original program back on track without ridicule or finger pointing to either the program or the clients, just a little old fashion root cause analysis with the goal of bringing the clients back to their respective programs. A safe place could be built to provide a haven which would foster and continue growth in the clients, while the long term program is being repaired or a new one identified.
Clients from failed programs and those damaged by sub programs may be able to help define what works and what doesn?t.
-
Well I have. With two kids. Been through more than I care to think about with them and never once considered resorting to shipping one of them off somewhere. I don't shirk my responsibilities.
Julie -- Getting outside help, is just that, seeking help. Whether people do it locally or off sight. With your definition, seeking a therapist to help or shipping your kid off to a public based school system (one size fits all) every morning, is to shirk ones responsibilities. Some would argue everyone should home school, getting tutoring for your child is an obvious flaw in ones parenting skills. You have a personal opinion, which is fine, but you should not judge the way others seek help for their children.
-
Can't people see that shipping their kids off is not the answer? Most kids getting sent to these programs are normal, annoying, adolescents. Because that's what this stage of life is about. Annoying the heck out of your parents, didn't we all do it? Didn't we all push our limits? Didn't we all explore and experiment? Didn't we all at one time or another do something that today could have landed us in some "program"? Luckily most of us didn't land in a program, most of us were allowed to grow, make mistakes, learn from our mistakes, and become productive and normal adults.
But today so many "normal" kids doing those annoying things - smoking a little pot (not that I think it's OK, I don't, but it's part of the process), sneaking out with their parents' car, or being unlucky enough to have ADHD or any other label put upon them - are locked up in what is supposed to be a place to help them. When in reality so many of the adults working in those places are saddistic pigs getting their jollies off of beating and torturing kids. Don't believe it? What about Martin Lee Anderson? What about the others who died while being restrained, the breath and life sucked right out of them because some 300 pound fool wouldn't listen when the child said he couldn't breathe.
Parents need to parent, plain and simple. In my opinion, when you have a child you are responsible to care for that child until he or she is grown. Not until it's no longer convenient. And it's up to we parents to show our children love and respect, to give our children a large amount of our time, not just the leftovers because our lives are too busy. Single parents are so busy dating that they leave their kids home alone, sometimes all night, and then wonder why they have problems with them later. Then when they remarry the kid is seen as a problem, and the parents find a very easy solution. Send him/her away to be fixed.
Just an opinion ......
-
Forgot to log in, the last post was mine:
Can't people see that shipping their kids off is not the answer? Most kids getting sent to these programs are normal, annoying, adolescents. Because that's what this stage of life is about. Annoying the heck out of your parents, didn't we all do it? Didn't we all push our limits? Didn't we all explore and experiment? Didn't we all at one time or another do something that today could have landed us in some "program"? Luckily most of us didn't land in a program, most of us were allowed to grow, make mistakes, learn from our mistakes, and become productive and normal adults.
But today so many "normal" kids doing those annoying things - smoking a little pot (not that I think it's OK, I don't, but it's part of the process), sneaking out with their parents' car, or being unlucky enough to have ADHD or any other label put upon them - are locked up in what is supposed to be a place to help them. When in reality so many of the adults working in those places are saddistic pigs getting their jollies off of beating and torturing kids. Don't believe it? What about Martin Lee Anderson? What about the others who died while being restrained, the breath and life sucked right out of them because some 300 pound fool wouldn't listen when the child said he couldn't breathe.
Parents need to parent, plain and simple. In my opinion, when you have a child you are responsible to care for that child until he or she is grown. Not until it's no longer convenient. And it's up to we parents to show our children love and respect, to give our children a large amount of our time, not just the leftovers because our lives are too busy. Single parents are so busy dating that they leave their kids home alone, sometimes all night, and then wonder why they have problems with them later. Then when they remarry the kid is seen as a problem, and the parents find a very easy solution. Send him/her away to be fixed.
Just an opinion ......
-
Julie -- Getting outside help, is just that, seeking help.
One man's help is another man's torture.
-
"Most kids getting sent to these programs are normal, annoying, adolescents."
I sat in a group of 20 or so parents at my kid's TBS and listened while each parent told the story of how they wound up there. I can assure you that NONE of these kids were being "normal, annoying adolescents." That is, unless you count violence towards family members, stealing from family and the parents of friends, serious substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, abusive relationships and ruining one's educational opportunities "normal and annoying". Without exception, these parents loved and cherished their teens, and were willing to do absolutely anything to help them. I wish there was some way you could understand this.
-
On 2006-03-08 08:16:00, sorry... try another castle wrote:
You know what I haven't heard a lot about? Carlbrook. Why doesn't anyone talk about that school? It would be nice to know what the plusses and minuses were.
Look at the Carlbrook thread. There are at least two parents posting there. The school is only a few years old. There was lots of info. given by a guy who had a son actually graduate from there. The jury is still out. But, don't you at least HOPE the place is OK or are you just hoping to prove your side. I'm hoping for the kids that are there that the founders have developed a program that cobines elements that actually work for at least some of the kids.
Well, actually I was being sarcastic. I'm officially carlbrook-ed out on this forum.
But seriously. What's this carlbrook I've heard of? Is that like, a school or something?
-
On 2006-03-08 13:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
""Most kids getting sent to these programs are normal, annoying, adolescents."
That is, unless you count violence towards family members, stealing from family and the parents of friends, serious substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, abusive relationships and ruining one's educational opportunities "normal and annoying".
With the exception of violence, yes..I would consider them to be annoying periods of teenagedom. It's all in how you deal with it. And don't start on how I must not know. I've seen two teenagers through some of the nasties, scariest times possible. If you're an all-or-nothing, black-and-white kind of parent that sees all drug use, sex and general screwing around with the education as the proverbial "danger signs" then yeah, I could see how you'd fall for their schpeil (sp?). I think parents today are freaked out and completely floored when their kids start to actually develop minds and thoughts of their own. They become easy marks not just for the programs but for the whole flawed system that sets them up for a lifetime of self-doubt and adherence to an unrealistic set of standards.
Without exception, these parents loved and cherished their teens, and were willing to do absolutely anything to help them. I wish there was some way you could understand this."
I do understand it. I don't think they're all evil, selfish people (although some clearly are). They patsies and pawns. They're easy marks. They're scared and vulnerable which makes them prime targets for those looking to exploit them for their own gain, be it financial or some sick need to be 'the savior'.
-
I do understand it. I don't think they're all evil, selfish people (although some clearly are). They patsies and pawns. They're easy marks. They're scared and vulnerable which makes them prime targets for those looking to exploit them for their own gain, be it financial or some sick need to be 'the savior'
It doesn?t matter what the parents are. They are all different, all different circumstances. Sure some may be taken advantage of, it happens in all walks of life.
You pull into a gas station with a flat and no spare and out of state plates, do you think the owners of the station are going to be worried that you wont buy their tires and maybe lower their price? Just the opposite, sure the driver is between a rock and a hard place and he may still have other options or maybe not. But the fact remains the car has a flat and needs repair, it doesn?t matter how good or bad the driver is or if he/she is an easy mark or a patsy.
You have a person who provides a service (Schools) and someone looking for a service (parents). Sometimes it?s a buyers market, sometimes it a sellers market. Its not black and white each case is different.
-
You pull into a gas station with a flat and no spare and out of state plates, do you think the owners of the station are going to be worried that you wont buy their tires and maybe lower their price? Just the opposite, sure the driver is between a rock and a hard place and he may still have other options or maybe not. But the fact remains the car has a flat and needs repair, it doesn?t matter how good or bad the driver is or if he/she is an easy mark or a patsy.
How about if the tire they sold you blew out ten miles down the road? That's how most of us feel about these programs.
What if they were allied with the ones laying the nails out in the road in the first place?
-
How about if the tire they sold you blew out ten miles down the road? That's how most of us feel about these programs.
Well, your right that does happen, even your best brands have a failure rate. At least you are ten miles further down the road and hopefully no worse off. But you are out a few bucks which you will never see again.
-
The program parents I met are not what I would consider to be "easy marks". Most of them are very successful and discerning professionals who are used to analyzing all the options and making informed choices. The choice of an emotional growth program was not made in haste or without thorough investigation. This is a large expense and involves the most important thing in your life- your child. I can assure you that these parents-at least the ones I met through the 2 programs my kid attended- are on top of things. If a program is totally deceitful, it's a different story, but that was not the case with these 2 places.
Is it normal teen behavior to steal from the family or parents of friends? Maybe we parents have a different tolerance level, but I can assure you that my kid agrees that his behavior was not within the bounds of acceptable.
-
Well, your right that does happen, even your best brands have a failure rate. At least you are ten miles further down the road and hopefully no worse off. But you are out a few bucks which you will never see again.
Might feel differently if you crashed off the side of the road because of your faulty tire, all the while driving full speed trusting the shop didn't sell you a worn out tire intstead of a new one.
-
Might feel differently if you crashed off the side of the road because of your faulty tire, all the while driving full speed trusting the shop didn't sell you a worn out tire intstead of a new one.
Sure, someone knowingly tries to put you in an unsafe position. Not much you can do.
-
On 2006-03-08 15:53:00, TheWho wrote:
"How about if the tire they sold you blew out ten miles down the road? That's how most of us feel about these programs.
Well, your right that does happen, even your best brands have a failure rate. At least you are ten miles further down the road and hopefully no worse off. But you are out a few bucks which you will never see again.
"
That's such a poor analogy. Hopefully no worse off? It's your child we're talking about, NOT a tire. I know you're just trying to illustrate a point, but that's a poor choice. But anyway, would you buy a tire that has an inordinately high chance of blowing out doing 80 down the highway?
-
On 2006-03-08 15:54:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The program parents I met are not what I would consider to be "easy marks". Most of them are very successful and discerning professionals who are used to analyzing all the options and making informed choices. The choice of an emotional growth program was not made in haste or without thorough investigation. This is a large expense and involves the most important thing in your life- your child. I can assure you that these parents-at least the ones I met through the 2 programs my kid attended- are on top of things. If a program is totally deceitful, it's a different story, but that was not the case with these 2 places.
Is it normal teen behavior to steal from the family or parents of friends? Maybe we parents have a different tolerance level, but I can assure you that my kid agrees that his behavior was not within the bounds of acceptable."
I know you guys think you're insulated from this because of you education or background but very often those are the people that fall for it the easiest. My father is a prime example. Without a doubt one of the most brilliant men I know yet completely clueless regarding this issue.
One of the articles about the boot camp death explains it perfectly, I'll try and find it but it basically says that this appeals to both liberals and conservatives. The conservatives seem to like the tough-love/get tough on crime stuff to a disturbing degree and the idea of an 'alternative solution' appeals to the libs. Personally I put the libs in the 'intellectual' group. The one's that really, truly and wholeheartedly believe that they're doing the right thing. That makes them more dangerous than the damn neo-cons.
-
That's such a poor analogy. Hopefully no worse off? It's your child we're talking about, NOT a tire. I know you're just trying to illustrate a point, but that's a poor choice. But anyway, would you buy a tire that has an inordinately high chance of blowing out doing 80 down the highway?
Yea, I know, I thought the same after I posted, probably could have demonstrated my point differently, but anyway, there it is.
I would try to get the best tire available to me.
-
On 2006-03-08 16:49:00, TheWho wrote:
" That's such a poor analogy. Hopefully no worse off? It's your child we're talking about, NOT a tire. I know you're just trying to illustrate a point, but that's a poor choice. But anyway, would you buy a tire that has an inordinately high chance of blowing out doing 80 down the highway?
Yea, I know, I thought the same after I posted, probably could have demonstrated my point differently, but anyway, there it is.
I would try to get the best tire available to me.
"
Let's use an airbag analogy. Cars have airbags to protect people. What if it was there were numerous, credible, continually mounting reports that airbags actually increased the risk of death and that going with just the old fashioned seat belts and no air cushion was actually safer?
no I'm not saying that airbags aren't helpful, well except for kids but just to use a more appropriate illustration.
-
On 2006-03-08 16:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
One of the articles about the boot camp death explains it perfectly, I'll try and find it but it basically says that this appeals to both liberals and conservatives.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13883103.htm (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13883103.htm)
Boot camps for kids should be given the boot
BY FRED GRIMM [email protected]
Failure doesn't matter.
We've known for years that a kid like Martin Lee Anderson, if he had survived his six-month lock-up at the Bay County boot camp, was more likely than not to get into more trouble.
Depending on the study, from 64 to 75 percent of the kids graduating from boot camp lock-ups are re-arrested within a year.
Boot camps are failed concepts.
If the survival of these uber-tough military-style detention programs had depended on actual performance, the Bay County boot camp would have been shuttered long before young Anderson was busted for joy riding in his granny's car.
He collapsed and died on Jan. 6 after a few horrific hours at the camp. At least he won't be around to add to its abysmal recidivism rate.
If not for Martin's death, no one would be talking about Florida's boot camps. A brutal beating and a dead 14-year-old gets attention. A program's long-term failure to rehab three-fourths of its inmates doesn't matter.
Failure simply isn't a deal breaker when it comes to crime-fighting programs. We pay $40 billion to $50 billion a year to sustain our decades-long War on Drugs.
Meanwhile, the street price of coke, the most reliable market indicator of our success in limiting supply, has dropped from $500 a gram in the early 1980s to less than $170. In 2004, we spent $5 billion spraying herbicide on Latin American cocoa leaves. Production went up.
But failure has no bearing on the political popularity of anti-crime programs. No one would dare redirect those billions into softy concepts that lack military terminology or get-tough promises.
WASTE OF TIME
''Why do we still have the DARE [Drug Abuse Resistence Education] program in schools after 20 years when everybody knows it's a waste of time and money?'' asked Aaron McNeece, dean of the Florida State University College of Social Work. It was a rhetorical question. McNeece knows that symbolic solutions to crime count more than results. The DARE program, putting uniformed police officers in classrooms to warn against drugs, has been an especially resilient failure.
In 2001 the U.S. Surgeon General reported that studies of the DARE program ``consistently show little or no deterrent effects on substance use.''
The next year, National Academy of Sciences slammed DARE. The GAO reported ``no significant differences in illicit drug use between students who received DARE and students who did not.''
Three-strikes-and-you're-out may be a popular sentencing regime among politicians. Three strikes against DARE didn't matter.
Boot camps evolved from Scared Straight, the original shock-the-kids program based on the assumption that taking children on tours of jails would scare them into lawful behavior. Scared Straight didn't work. Failure didn't matter. It just inspired the next step in shock therapy.
WIDE APPEAL
''Boot camps appealed to everybody,'' said Jeanne B. Stinchcomb, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida Atlantic University. She published a paper last year in the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, entitled, tellingly, From Optimistic Policies to Pessimistic Outcomes: Why Won't Boot Camps either Succeed Pragmatically or Succumb Politically?
She said conservatives liked the get-tough image. Liberals liked an alternative to prison. Boot camps were cheap to operate. The idea simply had too many powerful stakeholders for failure to matter.
And the public, Stinchcomb said, embraced boot camps with an ''intuitive faith'' that this was the quick fix for juvenile crime. Everyone loved the images of ''little urban wretches'' marching around like soldiers.
Oh, how we love to combat crime with military metaphors. Unless some brave political leader declares a War on Useless Policies, the failures just won't matter.
-
Let's use an airbag analogy. Cars have airbags to protect people. What if it was there were numerous, credible, continually mounting reports that airbags actually increased the risk of death and that going with just the old fashioned seat belts and no air cushion was actually safer?
no I'm not saying that airbags aren't helpful, well except for kids but just to use a more appropriate illustration.
Although, I have no experience in airbags, I accept the data and studies which support that the old fashion seatbelts are safer, but they continue to not work for our family for some reason. We crash and someone gets hurt, we have retrained the driver, cut out the ?back seat? driving, turned down the radio but we continue to crash and the belts are not working for us and we realize we cannot continue like this because our family spends half the time at the hospital getting fixed-up. We never get time to function as a family because one of us is always in recovery from the last accident and one individual needs all the focus instead of the family as a whole.
We have spoken to friends who have airbags and they seem to be doing fine, had a few accidents but their family unit seems to be unaffected, thriving and feel safer etc. Although, I have read the reports on airbags, I know it is a matter of time before someone gets hurt beyond repair if we do nothing so I would decide to have the best airbags available installed in our car as a last available option before our family disintegrated.
-
Boot camps are failed concepts.
If the survival of these uber-tough military-style detention programs had depended on actual performance, the Bay County boot camp would have been shuttered long before young Anderson was busted for joy riding in his granny's car.
I agree, I dont think I would want my kid in the places you described.
-
The phrase 'so close, yet so far away' fits you pretty well. I like you in spite of myself. I think you're genuinely a decent man who is really trying to figure things out and do the right thing. But you're not seeing the bigger picture.
I understand that parents are scared. I believe they have reason to be scared but not to the degree or for all of the same reasons as you. The difference between kids t'day (nod to Eudora) and our generation and the ones before that is that, IMO, kids now are more blatant and visible about their rebellion. I don't mean to go all political here but it's really unavoidable if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts of the issue. Media and politics has shaped how people view society, kids, crime, drugs etc. Early on when this whole messy business started (early 70s) times were changing, fast. Nixon and Co., IMO, started this whole 'get tough' policy snowball be it kids, crime, drugs etc. Couple that with increasing media and communication, kids being outwardly defiant (we all were, we were just more subtle about it) and that's a powerful, explosive mixture. The culture has gotten so woven into so many different areas and it felt[/b] so good (see above quoted article, it applies to the mentality of all behavior mods) that hardly anyone was taking a serious look at what the ramifications might be. A few brave souls tried but ended up losing jobs, family and more due to the powers-that-be that had discovered how useful these tools were in drumming up support for their candidate, or upping their status in the community made it absolutely impossible to be heard above the self-congratulations and rhetoric.
This has conversely created more problems and the kids are the ones who are suffering. Kids are raised today with all this false information in an effort to 'prepare' them for the 'dangers they're going to face out there'. Just as I believe AA creates a self-fulfilling prophecy I believe this does as well. Its' just become so accepted and widespread that it's hardly noticed. The societal culture sets parents AND kids up from the beginning. Watch out! Here's the latest and most dangerous drug!! News at 11, how to protect your kids from ~~insert boogeyman here~~. If elected I promise to get tough on juvenile crime. If elected I promise alternatives to jail for youthful offenders. It's mostly smoke and mirrors and it comes from both ends of the political spectrum but the Repubs seem to be especially adept at expoiting it.
The Who, I really hope you'll read Maia's book. I'd like to hear your thoughts. I think there may be hope for you. You stick around this nuthouse, dish it out and take it with the best of us and most importantly like I said earlier, I think at heart you're a decent man.
Help At Any Cost explains this much better than I could. Did I mention that I want you to read it? :lol:
-
I think The Who is a woman.
-
On 2006-03-08 18:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I think The Who is a woman. "
Oh, my bad. Sorry
I think my point is that I'd rather fix what's really wrong instead of perpetuating old problems. That's a big fish to fry though. That's changing the way a helluva lot of people have been trained and conditioned to think.
-
http://www.montanaacademy.com/public_success.asp (http://www.montanaacademy.com/public_success.asp)
For those of you who are always asking for statistics and success rates, here is some information from one excellent program.
-
What is that a study? Based on what? Telephone surveys?
Come on! ::noway::
-
Okay, here's my idea.
Prototype program for "Castle's Home for Wayward Youth."
You send your kid to me, with a bundle of money. I give the money to the kid, give them a bunch of maps, tourist booklets, foreign-language dictionaries, some matching luggage, a list of youth hostels, tell them to "have fun", and pack them off to Europe for a year. (With a mandatory one month course of study in Amsterdam.)
How does that sound?
-
On 2006-03-08 19:29:00, sorry... try another castle wrote:
"Okay, here's my idea.
Prototype program for "Castle's Home for Wayward Youth."
You send your kid to me, with a bundle of money. I give the money to the kid, give them a bunch of maps, tourist booklets, foreign-language dictionaries, some matching luggage, a list of youth hostels, tell them to "have fun", and pack them off to Europe for a year. (With a mandatory one month course of study in Amsterdam.)
How does that sound?
"
On the nosie!! :nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy:
-
On 2006-03-08 09:35:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Julie- I actually feel sorry for darling Katie. You are in for a big shock when she goes through the NORMAL emotions and behavior of puberty.
How do you explain families with ONE out of control teen where the other kids behave within the norms of society? Bad parenting of just this one kid?
Yep, there are plenty of bad parents out there- I fall into that category in many ways. However, not all kids with bad parents steal, abuse substances and get kicked out of school. The issue is- once the teen is in trouble (no matter whether it is due to poor parenting, peer pressure, the brain functions of the kid, whatever) what is the best course of action. I absolutely know that YOU are in no position to make this call or criticize a parent until you stand in their shoes."
You get one kid who is a screw up and other kids who fit other roles because that's the way dysfunctional families work.
Or rather, the way they don't work.
The screw up kid serves the function of distracting the rest of the family from their own problems.
The hero kid serves the function of "proving" to the family that the family itself is not screwed up or it couldn't have such a terrific kid.
And so forth.
I don't need to "explain" it---the literature on adult children of alcoholics, and the literature that extends that to dysfunctional families generally, is chock full of examples.
I've never been a drunk driver, either, but I don't have to "stand in the shoes" of a drunk driver to know it's bad to drink and drive.
*I'm* in for a big shock? I'm not the one who fucked up parenting my kid so much I shipped him off to strangers to have him "fixed."
You're just bitter because you fucked up the job.
Julie
-
You don't know yet whether you fucked up your parenting job or not! Time will tell, but I can tell from your writing that your own unresolved issues will affect darling Katie. Give it a few years.
-
On 2006-03-08 20:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"You don't know yet whether you fucked up your parenting job or not! Time will tell, but I can tell from your writing that your own unresolved issues will affect darling Katie. Give it a few years. "
Bitter, much?
Julie
-
Not at all bitter. Maybe a little smug when I read the crap you write, but not bitter. I am glad I had the resources to get my kid the help he needed. I have two wonderful, smart and talented kids who are making the most of their lives. I truly hope things work out for you and darling Katie. May she still be darling at 15!
-
Hey Eudora, you know how you have a graphic for a bullshit-o-meter? Do you think you can make one for a condescension-o-meter?
-
find one, host it, and use the img tags :wink:
-
On 2006-03-08 20:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Not at all bitter. Maybe a little smug when I read the crap you write, but not bitter. I am glad I had the resources to get my kid the help he needed. I have two wonderful, smart and talented kids who are making the most of their lives. I truly hope things work out for you and darling Katie. May she still be darling at 15!"
I might believe you if you didn't spend your free time trying to convince others of this.What experiences and history teach is this-that people and government never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.
--G.W.F Hegel (1770-1831)
-
The Who, I really hope you'll read Maia's book. I'd like to hear your thoughts. I think there may be hope for you. You stick around this nuthouse, dish it out and take it with the best of us and most importantly like I said earlier, I think at heart you're a decent man.
Help At Any Cost explains this much better than I could. Did I mention that I want you to read it?
I will take a look at the book, thanks for not giving up on me !! {Smile}
-
I still maintain that the trip to Europe is a good idea. Just because a kid needs a change of scenery and might need to be sent away doesn't necessarily mean that the experience needs to be punitive. Maia suggests living with a relative for a while as one possibility. And I say, if you are going to sink a shitload of cash for residential treatment, just send them on a tour of fucking Europe. I guarantee you, they will come back looking at things differently, and they may have actually made some new friends. The time lost from school is probably no great loss, compared to the sorry excuse for an "education" they would get in a program anyway. Better to take a year off, and then come back and get an education in a REAL school.
If you are worried about them getting into trouble, well of COURSE they will get into trouble. But it will be in a new fun way! In another country! Away from you!
And they might actually do some fucking growing up.
_________________
"Learn from your mistakes so that one day you can repeat them precisely."
-Trevor Goodchild
[ This Message was edited by: sorry... try another castle on 2006-03-09 19:24 ]
-
OK- so you have a kid who is stealing, wrecking cars, getting thrown out of school, abusing substances, being violent towards the family, disrespecting everyone- and you suggest rewarding him with a 1 year all-expense paid trip to Europe!
Can I be reincarnated as one of your kids?
-
On 2006-03-09 19:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"OK- so you have a kid who is stealing, wrecking cars, getting thrown out of school, abusing substances, being violent towards the family, disrespecting everyone- and you suggest rewarding him with a 1 year all-expense paid trip to Europe!
Can I be reincarnated as one of your kids?"
Absolutely for the trip, negative for the reincarnation.
I mean, fuck, that's what rich people USED to do for their trouble-maker kids, and a lot of those kids ended up being multi-millionare business moguls... or the president of the united states.
_________________
"Learn from your mistakes so that one day you can repeat them precisely."
-Trevor Goodchild
[ This Message was edited by: sorry... try another castle on 2006-03-09 19:45 ]
-
The Europe trip may work for some, but if they screw-up over seas they can be a lot tougher jails there. Talk about isolation, food, lack of phones etc.. I am not sure I would want to risk it.
_____________________
If you really want to hurt your parents, and you don?t have the nerve to be a homosexual, the least you can do is go into the arts. But do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites, standing for absolutely nothing. All they do is show you?ve been to college.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
-
On 2006-03-09 19:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"OK- so you have a kid who is stealing, wrecking cars, getting thrown out of school, abusing substances, being violent towards the family, disrespecting everyone- and you suggest rewarding him with a 1 year all-expense paid trip to Europe!
Can I be reincarnated as one of your kids?"
Which can either describe:
a kid who took a few bucks out of your purse, had a fender bender, got suspended for getting in a scuffle with a romantic rival, has been getting drunk at parties on weekends and comes home smelling of burnt oak leaves, slapped Mama *back*, and mouths off....
OR
A kid who stole the neighbor's car and drove it drunk, smashing into a car full of kids driven by a pregnant lady, got expelled for getting caught selling pot in the school bathroom, has track marks all up and down his arm and a meth lab in his room, punched out his little sister, and mouths off.
One's a normal teen who's a bit wild, the other's a juvenile criminal.
With the whole spectrum in between.
Taking it from normal kid all down through the spectrum, you can go pretty far down that spectrum before the kid needs to go to juvie jail, and you can go pretty far down that spectrum handling the individual incidents of bad behavior with Mom Fu.
You know what? If you fuck up badly enough as a parent that your teenager is *almost* but *not quite* bad enough for juvie jail, abuses drugs but isn't an addict, is moody as hell but not actually mentally ill, has hit you or the other parent but not quite bad enough or often enough to call the cops and press charges----if you screwed up bad enough that that's your kid, then that kid's teenage years are just your karma or your cross to bear (depending on your religious orientation) for being ultra-permissive, or ultra-controlling, or spending all your time on other stuff and ignoring the kid, or screwing up your kid's domestic life with marrying a jerk---whatever your major malfunction was, what goes around comes around and that almost-too-terrible kid is your problem that you've earned.
You know what? If you go out and buy all your meals at Burger Thing, and your butt gets fat as a house, you've earned that butt, you've *made* that butt, and you have to live with that butt unless you can somehow work hard enough *in the right way* to make it better.
So, if your kid is all that bad, then you've made that butt and you're stuck with living with that butt. If you work hard with him *in the right way* you might be able to make him be not such a big butt.
Just thank your lucky stars that when you make yourself a big teenage butt you can get rid of him in five years or less.
Julie
-
Okay, that was cold, but look at all these Program Parents. Their whole argument boils down to, "My teenager is a big, fat butt. He's a bigger butt than you can ever possibly imagine. I have the right and duty to send that big butt off to private prison so that they can shrink him down to size for me while I sit on my arse and pretend to be 'working on my issues.'"
If you've got a big, fat butt, then you can't walk in here and expect us to pretend along with you that there aren't a whole lot of cheeseburgers and supersized soft drinks that went into making that big butt.
You sat around on that old parental couch in one way or another and woke up one day to find out you'd grown a great big butt. Now you want to scream, "It's not my fault!" or, "I know I'm not perfect, I'm working on my issues too!" or, "Where the hell did this big butt come from!" or, "How dare you judge me! You'll have a big butt too, one day, then you'll see!" Meanwhile, you want to offload all the real pain and suffering coming from your mistakes off onto the kid.
It's like liposuction where you somehow figure out a way to stick someone else with all the post-op pain of recovery. Or a magic diet where you eat chocolate cake and cheeseburgers and your neighbor eats celery sticks, does a bazillion push-ups, and is hungry all the time---and you're the one whose butt shrinks.
Big surprise. You spent the kid's formative years being self-centered, immature, and self indulgent (in whatever style you picked) and let your kid be the one to suffer for it.
Why would you be any different now?
If your kid is a big butt, then if you quit being self-centered, immature, and self indulgent (in whatever style you have been), then your kid will gradually quit being such a big butt.
Obviously, even after you start doing the right things, it takes awhile to improve your big butt.
Julie
-
So, if your kid is all that bad, then you've made that butt and you're stuck with living with that butt. If you work hard with him *in the right way* you might be able to make him be not such a big butt.
Julie -- Why cant you have a little understanding and compassion for families who are having problems? It doesn?t have to be the kids fault or the parents fault. It could be the dynamics that are not working or causing the problem. Maybe your butt is fat because of a thyroid condition and you could eat well balanced meals, keep your intake under 1,000 calories/day and work out 3 times a week and still have to deal with a fat butt everyday unless you seek outside help.
-
Instead of sending the kid to Europe for a year, how much more would the kid improve if the *parents* spent six months seeing a good family therapist (one with experience with dysfunctional families, not "tough love") working to not be a control freak, or not be ultra-permissive, or not be inconsistent, or not to be a workaholic, or working on getting a jerk parent or stepparent out of the house?
Julie
-
On 2006-03-09 20:58:00, TheWho wrote:
" So, if your kid is all that bad, then you've made that butt and you're stuck with living with that butt. If you work hard with him *in the right way* you might be able to make him be not such a big butt.
Julie -- Why cant you have a little understanding and compassion for families who are having problems? It doesn�t have to be the kids fault or the parents fault. It could be the dynamics that are not working or causing the problem. Maybe your butt is fat because of a thyroid condition and you could eat well balanced meals, keep your intake under 1,000 calories/day and work out 3 times a week and still have to deal with a fat butt everyday unless you seek outside help.
"
And what does any of this have to do with the fact that programs which use coersion, isolation, LGATs, and other culty or "mind control" elements hurt children and DONT WORK?
You dont go to a fucking quack just so you can "do something" if the prognosis is to "wait for it to run its course".
The problems teenagers have are like colds. Both run their course and then its better - all cold remedies do is help the symptoms, same for a program. (It makes the parents FEEL better). Your entire arguement is based on the false assumption that you have to do something in the first place.
You dont! People need to learn how to sit on their god damn hands and not make things worse, and not be such busybodies.
-
On 2006-03-09 21:05:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Instead of sending the kid to Europe for a year, how much more would the kid improve if the *parents* spent six months seeing a good family therapist (one with experience with dysfunctional families, not "tough love") working to not be a control freak, or not be ultra-permissive, or not be inconsistent, or not to be a workaholic, or working on getting a jerk parent or stepparent out of the house?
Julie"
The problem with that is control freak parents who hear what they dont want to hear won't go. A close friend of mine has that problem... she says something her parents dont like to a therapist, and they find out? :roll:
Do the math.
-
On 2006-03-09 21:10:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"
On 2006-03-09 20:58:00, TheWho wrote:
" So, if your kid is all that bad, then you've made that butt and you're stuck with living with that butt. If you work hard with him *in the right way* you might be able to make him be not such a big butt.
Julie -- Why cant you have a little understanding and compassion for families who are having problems? It doesn�t have to be the kids fault or the parents fault. It could be the dynamics that are not working or causing the problem. Maybe your butt is fat because of a thyroid condition and you could eat well balanced meals, keep your intake under 1,000 calories/day and work out 3 times a week and still have to deal with a fat butt everyday unless you seek outside help.
"
And what does any of this have to do with the fact that programs which use coersion, isolation, LGATs, and other culty or "mind control" elements hurt children and DONT WORK?
You dont go to a fucking quack just so you can "do something" if the prognosis is to "wait for it to run its course".
The problems teenagers have are like colds. Both run their course and then its better - all cold remedies do is help the symptoms, same for a program. (It makes the parents FEEL better). Your entire arguement is based on the false assumption that you have to do something in the first place.
You dont! People need to learn how to sit on their god damn hands and not make things worse, and not be such busybodies. "
I would agree if it was a cold (wait it out)or over eating (one person go on a diet). But if it was a Thyroid condition, sitting on your hands and doing nothing isn?t going to help anything. You?ll end up with sore hands and still have a fat butt.
-
On 2006-03-09 20:58:00, TheWho wrote:
" So, if your kid is all that bad, then you've made that butt and you're stuck with living with that butt. If you work hard with him *in the right way* you might be able to make him be not such a big butt.
Julie -- Why cant you have a little understanding and compassion for families who are having problems? It doesn?t have to be the kids fault or the parents fault. It could be the dynamics that are not working or causing the problem. Maybe your butt is fat because of a thyroid condition and you could eat well balanced meals, keep your intake under 1,000 calories/day and work out 3 times a week and still have to deal with a fat butt everyday unless you seek outside help.
"
I have compassion fatigue for Program Parents because they have so little *real* compassion for the kids, and because my experience of the Program Parents is that they don't take responsibility for their contributions to the problem.
I have all the compassion in the world for someone who says, "Yeah, this is where I screwed up, a lot of this pickle I'm in came from stuff I did or neglected to do." I have that compassion provided the someone then takes responsibility for fixing it by doing the hard work themselves, not just throwing money to have someone else go through the pain and suffering instead of them.
Program Parents complaining about the "pain" of having their kids in a program is like someone on trial for killing his parents asking for leniency from the court because he's an orphan.
Most people with fat butts don't have thyroid conditions, they do not work out 3 times a week, they do not keep their calories down to the amount that would ordinarily (for any person generally) feed their target weight.
Most people who think their kids are big butts had a whole lot to do with them growing that way.
Why can't you tell the difference between compassion and enabling?
Too many people say, "Oh, it's okay, I'm sure it's not your fault. Okay, well, maybe only a little, but you're such a good parent, you're working so *haaard* now." They say it because they know it's what you want to hear, and maybe because they want to hear it back.
Having screwed up royally does not make a parent an axe murderer. However, it is counter-productive to give such parents too much sympathy when they're using that sympathy as an excuse to offload the pain and suffering from their behavior onto someone else instead of taking responsibility and *genuinely* working their way out of the hole they dug for themselves.
Offloading the pain and suffering onto the kid before fixing your own problems and letting the kid experiencing you parenting *right* is abdicating responsibility.
So many Program Parents complain their kids don't take responsibility for their behavior, and the harm it causes, or understand that their are consequences for their bad behavior.
Well where the hell do they think the kids learned *that* from?
It's not that I don't have sympathy for these kids, and for the parents who are obviously lost in the woods.
I just think it does the kids a disservice to be one more person patting the parents on the back for trying to substitute money for personal responsibility.
I have all the sympathy and compassion in the world for the parents who bring their kids home and then begin the hard work of taking personal responsibility for developing and applying healthy parenting skills.
The parents who take responsibility, bring their kids home, and start the long process of *personally* working on their parenting behaviors have the very same screwups in their past as the Program Parents.
The difference is that the parents who are learning and applying good parenting *at home*, with a good family therapist helping the parents learn those skills if those parents need outside help, are taking responsibility and accepting their own consequences of their own behavior themselves, while the Program Parents are still evading responsibility and trying to offload the personal life consequences of the parents' mistakes onto their child.
Program Parents have a very poor sense of boundaries telling the difference between what screwups and problems are their own screwups and problems and their own responsibility to fix, versus what screwups and problems are their kids' screwups and problems and their kids' responsibility to fix.
Using the Program offloads huge amounts of the parents' own responsibilities, screwups, and natural consequences onto their child.
I'm not saying the kid doesn't have responsibilities, screwups, and natural consequences.
I'm saying the portion of the problem that's the kid's responsibility, etc., versus the portion of the problem that's the parents' responsibility, etc., is *vastly* overestimated by Program Parents.
If by "compassion" you mean not telling Program Parents that they've screwed up, are still screwing up, and are evading responsibility for their own behavior by offloading it onto their kid, then the name for that is enabling.
I try not to do that.
I don't think a Program Parent is a shitty excuse for a human being or anything even remotely approaching one. You are not slime, you are not scum, you are not lower than low.
However, Program Parents have made a lot more lousy choices than they admit to, have a lot more responsibility for the ongoing situation than they admit to, and the act of sending the child to the Program offloads huge amounts of the Program Parents' responsibilities onto the child, heaped on top of the child's real responsibilities, in exchange for a whole lot of money.
You're not slime for having behaved badly, you just need to take responsibility and stop the bad behavior, and stop making excuses for having evaded that responsibility---which was another big mistake.
I have all the compassion in the world for parents of very difficult kids when the parents take responsibility and start behaving better.
I'm not doing the Program thing of calling you horrible names for your every mistake, you just need to do a better job of separating your mistakes out from your kid's mistakes and start behaving better.
Nobody expects Program Parents to learn better parenting skills overnight, but we do want them to admit leaving their kid there would be another huge mistake and make that first positive act of bringing their kid home.
If their kid is already out, then the first, big, positive act needs to be admitting to the kid that using a Program was a huge mistake and sincerely apologizing to him/her for it.
You're not a horrible person, you're just not stepping up and being responsible yet, and it would be much better if you did.
Julie
-
On 2006-03-09 21:20:00, TheWho wrote:
"
On 2006-03-09 21:10:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"
On 2006-03-09 20:58:00, TheWho wrote:
" So, if your kid is all that bad, then you've made that butt and you're stuck with living with that butt. If you work hard with him *in the right way* you might be able to make him be not such a big butt.
Julie -- Why cant you have a little understanding and compassion for families who are having problems? It doesn�t have to be the kids fault or the parents fault. It could be the dynamics that are not working or causing the problem. Maybe your butt is fat because of a thyroid condition and you could eat well balanced meals, keep your intake under 1,000 calories/day and work out 3 times a week and still have to deal with a fat butt everyday unless you seek outside help.
"
And what does any of this have to do with the fact that programs which use coersion, isolation, LGATs, and other culty or "mind control" elements hurt children and DONT WORK?
You dont go to a fucking quack just so you can "do something" if the prognosis is to "wait for it to run its course".
The problems teenagers have are like colds. Both run their course and then its better - all cold remedies do is help the symptoms, same for a program. (It makes the parents FEEL better). Your entire arguement is based on the false assumption that you have to do something in the first place.
You dont! People need to learn how to sit on their god damn hands and not make things worse, and not be such busybodies. "
I would agree if it was a cold (wait it out)or over eating (one person go on a diet). But if it was a Thyroid condition, sitting on your hands and doing nothing isn?t going to help anything. You?ll end up with sore hands and still have a fat butt."
Kids with issues arent thyroid conditions.
Even if they were similar, which they're not, you dont go to a QUACK that doesnt work, you get some blood work done and get on Levoxil.
Coersive programs dont work.
-
Besides which, if you have a thyroid condition, you don't go next door and force the Levoxil down you're neighbor's throat.
Julie
-
Julie- you are so off-base that it is hard to even know where to start. Your anger and hurt color everything you say. The way you generalize ALL program parents is immature. Your generalizations bear no resemblance to any of the parents I met through my kid's programs or through other support groups. These parents were more than willing to admit to their own mistakes and issues- many of which went back to their own upbringing. They have been through months or years of therapy- both individual and family. They have incredible compassion for their kids and others. You truly have no understanding of the nature of these families or what is going on. I suggest you limit your gross generalizations to things you might actually know something about.
Karen
-
Even if they were similar, which they're not, you dont go to a QUACK that doesnt work, you get some blood work done and get on Levoxil.
Yes, I think we agree, I want you to go to someone outside the home, I wouldnt go to a quack, but find the best doctor available.
-
Wow, Julie ? When you get up today you should reread your post. I don?t think your anger and hatred have to do with just program parents; there is something else going on which makes you act this way. Do you think you are doing your position (Anti-programs) justice by handing out hate like that? If you are trying to educate, bring to light or persuade prospective parents to your opinion, then the way you are speaking is very counter productive to your cause.
-
That's pretty funny, considering that all the parents that I met during my stay at ASR fit Julie's description to a "T". Wake up and smell the kool-aid already. No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it true.
One thing that IS true, no matter how you slant it, is the one common thread that runs through all of these programs. People without the necessary training are being employed by large corporations, to force unproven therapies on unwilling recipients, at the request of the victim's parents.
I really don't give a fuck what inane metaphors you people use to make it sound better than it is. You can say you're curing a condition, or replacing a tire, or whatever. You can argue till you're blue in the face about how desperately these kids need help, but that doesn't change the facts. The "help" you're giving to these kids has never been proven effective (proof means objective scientific data, verified by a reputable independent source, such as the American Psychiatric Association, not a goddamn WWASPS "panel of experts") and it's being administered by people who DO NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE CREDENTIALS!!!
If your kid really desperately requires help, then GET THEM PROFESSIONAL HELP!!! Don't send them to a "therapeutic" boarding school, send them to a REAL, LICENSED, MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY!!! We have doctors in this country for a reason. If your child is suffering from a legitimate medical issue, mental or otherwise, you don't punish them for it, or force them to shape up for their own good, you get them help from someone whose years of medical training makes them legitimately qualified to treat the problem.
-
On 2006-03-10 07:31:00, TheWho wrote:
"Wow, Julie � When you get up today you should reread your post. I don�t think your anger and hatred have to do with just program parents; there is something else going on which makes you act this way. Do you think you are doing your position (Anti-programs) justice by handing out hate like that? If you are trying to educate, bring to light or persuade prospective parents to your opinion, then the way you are speaking is very counter productive to your cause. "
Classic ad-hominem. If you disagree with what she says, why not refute her statement? Instead you go right into the personal discreditation, why?
-
On 2006-03-10 06:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Julie- you are so off-base that it is hard to even know where to start. Your anger and hurt color everything you say. The way you generalize ALL program parents is immature. Your generalizations bear no resemblance to any of the parents I met through my kid's programs or through other support groups. These parents were more than willing to admit to their own mistakes and issues- many of which went back to their own upbringing. They have been through months or years of therapy- both individual and family. They have incredible compassion for their kids and others. You truly have no understanding of the nature of these families or what is going on. I suggest you limit your gross generalizations to things you might actually know something about.
Karen
"
Some of us have a good understanding of what goes on in program families because we come from them. I think Julie is pretty accurate in her description of a large portion of the parents who sign up for these programs. I would say at least 50%. Be glad you are not part of that group Karen, but they do exist, in relatively large numbers.
-
On 2006-03-10 07:01:00, TheWho wrote:
"Even if they were similar, which they're not, you dont go to a QUACK that doesnt work, you get some blood work done and get on Levoxil.
Yes, I think we agree, I want you to go to someone outside the home, I wouldnt go to a quack, but find the best doctor available.
"
(coersive) Programs DO NOT WORK! THEY DONT FIX ANYTHING! THEY HURT!
The problems teenagers have dont need treatment, it needs to run its course. Its not a specific problem with a specific solution, its a nebulous dislike of their behavior, with no solution at all, and just as nebulous standards for what the problems are and how to fix it.
You dont go 'outside the home' to find a doctor because you have a cold.
Why are we even doing stupid analogies anyway? Analogies are analogies, they dont apply directly to anything except what they actually apply directly to - colds and thyroid conditions.
Every argument with you is circular and full of chaff and diversions, TheWho. Its getting old.
-
There are very good parents, there are good parents, there are average parents, there are bad parents, and there are very bad parents.
There is a group of kids whose parents think, either rightly or wrongly, that their kids are terribly screwed up---who then send their kids to a program.
These are all facts.
If you believe parenting has any effect at all on how kids turn out, then the conclusion that follows from those facts is obvious:
These kids do not come out of the homes of the very good parents, or the good parents, or even the average parents.
There are exceptions, but that's the rule. And, as I said, it's obvious.
Anyone who doesn't get pissed off at facilities that are turning out kids who got PTSD from the experience is one scary bitch or bastard.
I live in the Atlanta area. We had those "House of Prayer" idiots in this area. They thought beating their kids was necessary to save their souls and wouldn't quit hitting their kids with wooden spoons or worse even if it was going to mean the judge would take their kids away.
The whole country was horrified by those people and pissed off at and about them. And rightly so.
The only reason more of America isn't pissed off at the Programs and the Program Parents is because they don't know the Programs exist or what the suvivors and lawsuits and deaths are saying about what the Programs do.
I'm sure the parents that are part of the Atlanta House of Prayer would want my compassion and understanding if I was criticizing them to their faces, too.
Society needs to protect children from unusually bad parents when those parents become dangerous to those children. Society knows this, but sometimes screws it up because of lack of awareness or lack of money.
Program Parents don't like hearing that, when they keep putting their kids in the hands of a dangerous cult-like scam, they're some of the people society needs to protect kids from.
I'm a more or less average housewife and mother, who also happens to be a writer, who is appalled by institutionalized child abuse. That's the mainstream reaction of anybody who isn't a Program Parent who finds out about these facilities and the lack of consumer, professional, and regulatory protections governing them.
Ginger frequently, and correctly, points out the shortcomings of consumer protection laws and regulatory oversight, and touts public awareness as the solution.
I think she's right, and wrong. I think public awareness does more than regulatory oversight, but I also think regulatory oversight provides a valuable tool for investigative journalists and activists in promoting public awareness when people do bad things, for whatever reasons they do them.
Julie
-
Not EVERY kid is unwilling. Imagine this: maybe the happy kids and parents don't come here because it's working for them and they aren't doubting the program. My kid liked Carlbrook. My kid has even gone back for a visit to see friends and all of the staff. We didn't EVER have a problem.
-
"These kids do not come out of the homes of the very good parents, or the good parents, or even the average parents."
Julie- you have absolutely no basis upon which to make this statement. It is simply not true. Parenting is really difficult. There ARE no perfect parents. Who is to say what an "average" parent might be? That is one of the stupidest things you have said yet, on a whole site of stupid things you have said! Wonderful that you are an average housewife. Many women have to work to support, or help support, their families. In today's society, there are a lot of pitfalls in child-rearing. Let's wait and see how darling Katie turns out before we see how wonderful your parenting is- OR, whether despite your wonderful parenting (even with the clear anger issues), darling Katie rebels and has some serious issues.
-
What I didn't say earlier is that not every school is Carlbrook and thankfully our kid was admitted and actually benefitted from it. There are scary as shit places out there but Carlbrook isn't one of them.
-
These kids do not come out of the homes of the very good parents, or the good parents, or even the average parents.
There are exceptions, but that's the rule. And, as I said, it's obvious.
Well, you brought your argument a little more towards the center of the curve. The above statement shows you still cant see beyond what you have personally experienced and /or want to believe.
Based on what I have experienced and have selectively read hear on Fornits and using the logic you used, I could say:
?Kids who don?t go to programs come from below average parents who would rather sit back and do nothing, allow their children to slowly slide into the judicial system and become dependent on the state. The parents could react and help, because help is there, but they would rather save their money for that new car they want to buy in the spring and don?t want to get involved. How do I know this? Well, I personally know several families who have kids who went to these schools and are doing great and they are good parents, therefore, all kids would benefit from any program you happen to choose at random, based on the facts I have just presented and my personal observations. We have a family in town that has a child who was arrested for doing drugs and he went right back into the public school system so they must be bad parents. This should be obvious to all.?
Julie if you believe your argument and what it is based on, then mine holds water too. I think you have to be more careful how you group people and generalize.
-
This is pointless.
One presents a strawman, the other floats the absurdity that the parents that turn out the vast majority of healthy kids are worse than the parents whose claim to fame is thinking their kid is so horrible he needs to be sent away to a fixit shop.
The Anon with the strawman obviously lacks reading comprehension to look at a post that says I'm a housewife and a writer and then conclude I don't have a job. My job is that I write. Like a lot of other authors, I work from home.
Right now, I'm getting to some of the really fun action sequences leading up to the finish in the latest book, so I'm probably not going to be around much for awhile. Thread's gotten boring, work's getting especially neat.
See the rest of you folks later.
Who and Anon, I guess you guys get the last word, because the last argument stated by each of you is just so inane that there's nothing I can say to it that both discusses it on its merits and at the same time avoids saying uncomplimentary and true things about your respective abilities to engage in reasoned debate.
There once was a user who called the helpdesk because his computer wouldn't boot, had the tech support guy tell him to check the cables at the back of the box and make sure they were all fully plugged in. The user said he couldn't see back there because it was dark. Then the tech support guy asked why it was dark. Turns out the user's power was off.
What do you say to something like that? There's nothing truthful you can say that isn't just awful.
This discussion has gotten to that level--it's that bad. The thread about Swift River has gone dormant, and Alex is out of SCL. Rather than say some really cold, true stuff to these two, it's a good time for me to walk away for awhile.
The rest of you guys have the issues well in hand. :smile: Laters.
Julie
-
There once was a user who called the helpdesk because his computer wouldn't boot, had the tech support guy tell him to check the cables at the back of the box and make sure they were all fully plugged in. The user said he couldn't see back there because it was dark. Then the tech support guy asked why it was dark. Turns out the user's power was off.
What do you say to something like that? There's nothing truthful you can say that isn't just awful.
Julie, you are a writer, you could choose words that don?t hurt or choose not to place everyone in one box. Maybe saying nothing is enough, you do have the choice not to be mean and the choice to be nice.
It is not obvious to me why his computer didn?t work, I would need more information, maybe his computer malfunctioned and blew the circuit breaker, maybe it was a laptop that should transfer to battery back up if the power goes down and it hasn?t. Maybe the user is partially blind (needs plenty of light to see) and doesn?t realize it is dark in the room. There are many different circumstances to each situation. That has been my whole point, why insinuate and jump to the conclusion that you are forced to say something awful to him?
Good luck with your book, Julie, sounds like you are having fun.
_____________________________________
God Dammit, you've got to be kind!
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. "God Bless You Mr. Rosewater:"