Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

Hey Lars!

Nice to hear that you're doing well.    Glad to hear that getting things off your chest was what you felt you needed.

You have said it well:

Thank you.  I try.  :smile:

...Hyde reminds me of a politician that stands in front of an audience and sounds polished, committed, and dedicated, and when the lights and microphone are off he lives a life full of hypocrisy and contradiction...

Interesting.  Yes, I think you're probably right.  What's most scary to me, when I have the time to really consider it, is that Hyde believes their own hype.  Which is part of the trouble.

The politician may do some good in the world, but it's overshadowed by his duplicity.

And therein lies my greatest sadness.  Hyde does do good work for those of us that expressly fit the mold that Hyde was designed to affect.  But for those people who didn't come to Hyde already fitting that description, I really wonder what Hyde does to them.

Getting totally hypothetical, I suppose that it's possible that a child with drug/alcohol problems could ALSO have some of the character problems, as it would be argued that without such character problems, they would have the strength to not do drugs/alcohol.  But by the time they've got those dependencies, it is my personal opinion (and I believe this opinion is shared by many clinicians) that you have to "solve" the drug/alcohol problem first... and can then tackle the underlying cause(s)... which is the reason people go to detox first, THEN counseling.

Just my opinion, though.

I'm not exactly sure what you want me to respond to from your last post.

In my personal opinion, a boarding school should go above and beyond when it comes to providing a safe place for their students.  An allegation alone should not mean that staff is removed/punished.  However, multiple confirmed allegations, should be dealt with swiftly.

My legal opinion, on the other hand, is that unless and until there is proven harassment/assault, allegations can be very dangerous - especially when in a boarding school environment.

These two opinions create a conflict for me that I'm not sure how to resolve.  If the decision was up to me, I suppose I would do anything and everything in my power to get to the truth as quickly and as least painfully for everyone involved.  And then I would make a decision and stick to it.

But you are also correct, from a legal perspective, that Hyde has a duty to keep the students safe from harm.  If it were to come out that they knowingly had a predator on staff, they could be liable for a significant amount of damages in the event of a problem with that staff person.

How long ago was that?  I want to see it... :smile:

I don't know Larry Dubinsky, or any of the facts (or rumors, for that matter) surrounding any allegations.  So I'm not qualified to talk about it.

When I was there, I remember a VERY clear policy on boys in girls dorms and girls in boys dorms.  In fact, even when working on projects together, I was never let further than the downstairs rec area of the girls' dorm - I never saw a girls' room, now that I think about it.

So I don't remember a lax sex policy.  I also do not have any recollection of any "mistakes", any mid-year diappearances (for unexplained circumstances), nor any indication that sex was a tolerated activity between students.  And, as far as sex between a student and a teacher is concerned (and putting the legal issues aside for a moment), I can't imagine Hyde tolerating that either.

However, I do have to admit to something that is going to sound quite chauvenistic and possibly misogynistic.  There was, to my 8th grade, 13 year old, hormonally-charged mind, two types of girls at Hyde.  There were those that I would've said were prudish... and those that I would've said were sluttish.  Through the lens of time, I would now say that the prudish girls were actually better classified as introverts... and the sluttish ones would've been extroverts.  And lumping them just into those two categories is unfair.

But from the sluttish side, I did see a few girls who would try to act beyond their years - dressing in a way to attract attention and wearing more makeup than would ever be considered necessary.  As stated in many of my other posts, my guess is that these students were also probably in need of attention that Hyde wasn't equipped to provide.  I further suppose that this need of attention manifested itself in ways that were inappropriate.

This is, of course, no excuse for a person in a position of authority or dominance to take advantage ... and because of the tenuous nature of some of the psyches of these young women, their actions were not necessarily rational nor that of an adult.  Which means that even if someone from the outside were to argue that they were "asking for it" based on their behavior/dress/etc... they simply didn't have the capacity.

All in all, what I'm trying to say (and I think I'm messing it up here royally) is that the type of student who was at Hyde when I was there was generally the type that was looking ... needing ... begging ... for adult attention.  My guess is that the young women (who mature sexually far earlier than the boys) acted in a way that would encourage a less-than-balanced man to react in way that was less than appropriate.

Add that to a place that is already high-stress ... and where the balance of power is on constant display... and I'm guessing you have a sexual powder keg waiting to go off.

This is primarily why many boarding schools are single-gender.  And why many staff members at many boarding schools are only hired if they're older and married.  In fact, in my military school days, I can tell you that of all of the staff, there were only 2 women (an art teacher and a nurse) amongst all of the men.  And I'm guessing they did that for this very reason.

The way to deal with this after the fact is to immediately remove any teacher/administrator who is linked in any material way to any inappropriate behavior.  This is also an unfair reality... but one that has to exist to maintain credibility.  This will, of course, limit certain activities - and will force teacher-pairs at almost everything.  But sometimes that's what's necessary to prevent the so-called "appearance of impropriety."

Anyways, long answer to a short question... and I'm not even sure I answered it.  It's getting late here and I'm not sure I'm thinking totally clearly.

I'm glad you were able to get your son the help he needed.  You do not sound like a bad parent to me (not that I'm an expert on parenting... merely an "experienced son").  Overall, you did everything that I probably would have done.

As for Educational Consultants... well, I'm not really sure what to say.  I've never dealt with one and I don't know what they specifically offer.  From a consultant-side analysis, however, I would say that I would not recommend anything to anyone that I did not have experience with.

If your EC didn't know anything about Hyde other than word-of-mouth hearsay, they (IMHO) shouldn't have suggested Hyde to you.  Depending on your specific circumstances, I might even be so inclined to challenge the EC in court (but that's just the lawyer in me wanting justice).  Then again, sometimes it's just better to let it go and move on... especially if things turn out ok in the end.

Overall, I'm just glad that your son eventually got the proper diagnosis and help that he needed.  My brother has ADHD (among other issues), and I saw first-hand the horrors in public school education that he went through with untrained educators... and Hyde, again IMHO, wouldn't be any better... and might even be worse.

:smile:

Thank you for sharing with me.  I appreciate the response!  I'm glad that Hyde was able to be there for you when you needed it.

I never said that Hyde was a cult.  What I did say is that it can be cult-ish.  There's a huge difference.  I'm also not saying that Hyde has to be perfect.  Nothing ever is.  And, as I've said elsewhere, Hyde did provide me with some life lessons that were immensely valuable.

My chief complaint with Hyde, however, is that it has a one-size-fits-all (OSFA) program.  The trouble with that is that one-size NEVER fits all when it comes to attitudes, emotions, psychological and/or physical issues.  Which means that unless you fit the mold used to make the OneSize Program (OSP), the OSP is only going to frustrate you to some degree.

Think of it as a OSFA baseball hat, but without the elastic built into the band.  You and I both know that everybody's head is, at least, slightly different in size, shape or other features from anyone elses.  As a result, there will be a set of the population that will be able to wear the OSFA hat with an amount of comfort.  In terms of Hyde, I think that their OSP is for attitudinally-challenged students.

But the rest of the population wearing the OSFA hat is going to find out that it's too small, too big, too tall, too short, not stretchy enough, has a tag that scratches the head in some way, is the wrong color, has a baseball-brim and not a panama-hat brim, etcetera.  The list could go on forever.  Even if you limited it just to people looking for baseball hats, you're still dealing with a whole host of variables that don't fit into the OSFA product.

And again, the Hyde version of this is that they attempt to offer solutions for children with a laundry list of possible problems.  Substance abuse, physical abuse, learning disabilities, psychological problems, physical limitations, etcetera.  A person with one of those problems isn't going to enjoy the OSP as much - nor do I think they can benefit from the OSP, either - as would the person from/for whom the OSP was designed.

Imagine for a moment that a child with an undiagnosed learning disability is enrolled at Hyde.  Imagine that their problem is dyslexia, where they see written words/numbers in a reversed or jumbled order.  As a result, they have difficulty reading/writing, have trouble understanding and completing homework assignments, etc.  In the Hyde format, they're going to receive the same treatment that *I* did - which was based on my laziness and lack of desire to perform.  I was forced to apply myself, I was forced to address my laziness and generally poor attitude.  I was helped to understand that I had the ability to control my behavior.

Is that the right way to treat that learning disabled child?  Personally, I don't think so - and I don't think that the majority of other people would think so either.  A dyslexic person does not have the ability to self-correct.  They need specialized training to help them learn how to read, write and work in an environment that isn't exactly friendly to people with this difficulty.  

If Hyde wants to accept these students, then, I think it should be done with the understanding that they're going to find REAL solutions for these individuals.  Which means external counseling, extensive testing (to ferret out the problems that have gone undiagnosed), lots of understanding... and the abandonment of the OSP.  For a learning disabled child, this also means an adjustment of the model to deal with the fact that the child isn't able to perform because of something not entirely within their control.  For an ADHD child, as another example, kicking their chair to get their attention is not going to be proper treatment.  They need specialized teaching, as well as medication in certain instances.

My continued fear, however, based on my own experiences as well as affirmation by people on this board as well as others, is that Hyde is unwilling or unable to abandon or modify their OSP to a degree that allows for proper treatment of the types of children that they're trying to help.

My prior post

I said that Hyde isn't the place to get help. We all realize that - some more than others. This board's existance is proof enough that Hyde doesn't work the way it needs to.

is based on this fact.  Until Hyde adapts their program model for the differences inherent in the different types of problems presented by their students, it almost doesn't matter that Hyde has good intentions.  The result is that children are not getting the help that they need... and instead are getting "help" that can actually lead to more damage.

Hyde isn't an inherently bad place.  Joe Gauld isn't a bad person.  Their collective "heart" is in the right place.  But there needs to be the realization that OSFA doesn't ever fit all.[ This Message was edited by: fletch699 on 2006-06-19 11:22 ]

I saw that dory. It was very nice.

Really?  I never saw it completed.  We were working on the hull with Ken Grant... I never knew what happened to it after I left.

I figured they were going to build a fleet of them - anyone else participate in dory building?