Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Aspen Education Group => Topic started by: psy on April 17, 2007, 11:32:52 AM
-
psy wrote: bla bla bla.. You think these places practice positive re-enforcement!??!?!
I realize every place is different and I cannot speak to where you attended but on one of my visits to ASR we headed back to my daughters room, which was quite nice, she shared it with three other girls, they had their own bath. There was a table in the middle and she pulled out some dominos and we played, shot the breeze while waiting to join the other kids after dinner for a movie (I think they showed a movie every Sunday night). Anyway I noticed the bed next to my daughters was covered with sticky notes and I kind of walked over and they all said little words of encouragement, like “Good luck!!”, Know you can do it” etc. I asked my daughter what that was all about and she said her room mate had a history exam the next day (which was oral) and she had always be afraid of being called upon in school so this was a milestone for her to stand up in front of class. The notes were from students as well as staff members. They really cared for each other there and the staff/ counselors were always supportive as each child met and tackled each challenge.
With you reporting to the staff... do you really expect them to be open and honest about how they feel about program... Please. I remember parent visits. You had to be positive if you didn't want to get consequences.. I would just love that question: how do you like it here.. I understand Jimmy here loves it. What's your favorite part of program. You HAD to bullshit. You couldn't trust anybody.
Say if your daughter had said something to you about what might have actually been happening... and it shocked you. Provided she was convincing enough for you to get you to question the official line of thought, where would you have gone to confirm the allegation? Well you would probably have gone to staff directly, who would have told you it was a manipulation, laughed at it, told you "well that's a good one.. hahaha".. and then when you leave, your daughter would have gotten in some serious shit... Eventually, they might even be able to convince her that what she saw as "abusive" really wasn't. After all, she was a master manipulator. What's black is white if you believe hard enough. YOU DON'T LEAVE unless you believe it.
How would your daughter know not to report? Well she might have tried with you, had you dismiss it as "manipulative" and given up on turning to you for support. When you go to your own parent, asking for help, and they turn you down, who else do you have to turn to. Nobody. Hope dies.
But what if she never tried? She might have seen what happend to others who tried (or was warned)... or she might have not trusted you enough in the first place (after all, you sent her there, and staff emphasize over and over that parents have full knowledge of what goes on(i, for one, know they don't)).
Come on... When you control communication you can pretty much portray either party in whatever light you want. If you really want to make up with your daughter, ask her to tell her story of what happend to her. And don't say "that's absurd, or, you're exaggerating", or you'll lose her.
-
You place a child into a safe environment
No evidence to show TBS's are safe.
and provide them with therapy
Or force therapy on them.
most children will eventually work on their issues and grow.
Most children? Then why isnt there a single independent study showing these places do anything they claim to do?
I agree, that if you dig your heels in for 16 months you are not going to benefit from the stay there.
Or if youre abused you are not going to benefit from the stay their either.
-
psy wrote:
With you reporting to the staff... do you really expect them to be open and honest about how they feel about program... Please. I remember parent visits. You had to be positive if you didn't want to get consequences.. I would just love that question: how do you like it here.. I understand Jimmy here loves it. What's your favorite part of program. You HAD to bullshit. You couldn't trust anybody.
Say if your daughter had said something to you about what might have actually been happening... and it shocked you. Provided she was convincing enough for you to get you to question the official line of thought, where would you have gone to confirm the allegation? Well you would probably have gone to staff directly, who would have told you it was a manipulation, laughed at it, told you "well that's a good one.. hahaha".. and then when you leave, your daughter would have gotten in some serious shit... Eventually, they might even be able to convince her that what she saw as "abusive" really wasn't. After all, she was a master manipulator. What's black is white if you believe hard enough. YOU DON'T LEAVE unless you believe it.
How would your daughter know not to report? Well she might have tried with you, had you dismiss it as "manipulative" and given up on turning to you for support. When you go to your own parent, asking for help, and they turn you down, who else do you have to turn to. Nobody. Hope dies.
But what if she never tried? She might have seen what happend to others who tried (or was warned)... or she might have not trusted you enough in the first place (after all, you sent her there, and staff emphasize over and over that parents have full knowledge of what goes on(i, for one, know they don't)).
Come on... When you control communication you can pretty much portray either party in whatever light you want. If you really want to make up with your daughter, ask her to tell her story of what happend to her. And don't say "that's absurd, or, you're exaggerating", or you'll lose her.
At the place you went to that might have been the case, psy,but it just wasn’t like that at ASR. I am sure if a parent was told by their child that they were beating me or haven’t been fed in a week there would be some back lash and the school wouldn’t be happy with the kids making up stories like that. But if the kid was that unhappy to the level they needed to tell stories to that degree they would probably just leave anyway walk out or leave the program.
I asked my daughter if she thought ASR was abusive and she “no”. Where there parts you thought were bordering on abusive and she said “no”. I asked her if she could go back to the day she started and change one thing about ASR what would it be. She thought for a moment and finally said the phone calls. We only got to talk 20 minutes a week or twice a week but she wished it could have been longer. Did people listen in to their calls? No, there was a counselor present when the kids were calling home. I actually used the phones they used and it was in an open area there was a table which was partitioned off so 4 to six kids could talk at once. The counselor was in the room to intervene in case any major conflicts broke out or the child needed support. We talk about her time at ASR periodically, I may bring it up from time to time based on things I hear on fornits and she brings it up if she hears from a friend in her old peer group. So the topic isn’t avoided and is far from a sore or uncomfortable subject for us.
-
Did people listen in to their calls? No, there was a counselor present when the kids were calling home.
In common terms this is called "monitored contact," quite obviously "listening in"; your statement is self-contradicting. If children were not allowed to use the phone for unmonitored contact, it is a violation of their right to report abuse unfettered. Not to mention that the law requires a free line for any student to use at any time for the purpose of reporting abuse.
How could you possibly know anyway if there were a station out of the room dedicated to monitoring every call, as in the places where I worked? Answer: you couldn't. Just more speculation placed out as fact...
-
Did people listen in to their calls? No, there was a counselor present when the kids were calling home.
In common terms this is called "monitored contact," quite obviously "listening in"; your statement is self-contradicting. If children were not allowed to use the phone for unmonitored contact, it is a violation of their right to report abuse unfettered. Not to mention that the law requires a free line for any student to use at any time for the purpose of reporting abuse.
How could you possibly know anyway if there were a station out of the room dedicated to monitoring every call, as in the places where I worked? Answer: you couldn't. Just more speculation placed out as fact...
There were situations where kids were working out problems with family members and the child could get hurt or need support. The area wasn’t like a phone booth, it was set up like some of the testing areas they would have in some schools where you couldn’t see the person across from you and there was a partition in between each child and a phone for each section. So the kids could talk without hearing each other. I would consider it private (When I was speaking on the phone there were people in the room and I felt they couldn’t hear me.) She said there was a counselor in the room doing paper work or what ever, but not sitting next to you. He was there in case he was needed.
I guess it is possible the phones were wire tapped but that could occur or be applied anywhere. When I went in to use the phone the door was not locked. There might have been other phones in other areas of the school, I didn’t ask.
Not to mention that the law requires a free line for any student to use at any time for the purpose of reporting abuse
I am not saying they do or do not meet this requirement, as you stated. With the door being unlocked this may cover the requirement, though, and it is off of a general area, so kids could get to it if needed fairly easily.
-
:roll:
-
There were situations where kids were working out problems with family members and the child could get hurt or need support.
Wanna buy a bridge? Never ceases to amaze me how the Program faithful will buy the most transparent fibs from fellow followers while simply dismissing hard evidence that they don't care to know about.
-
There were situations where kids were working out problems with family members and the child could get hurt or need support.
Wanna buy a bridge? Never ceases to amaze me how the Program faithful will buy the most transparent fibs from fellow followers while simply dismissing hard evidence that they don't care to know about.
Thats a stretch......Everyone here is so paranoid and uptight. It’s a place to make phones calls, not Watergate Ha,Ha,Ha,. How could it be designed any simpler? They partition it off so kids can have their privacy.
If there is a counselor in the room then its: Oh they are listening in.
If there is no counselor in the room then it is: For $6,000 a month you would expect they hire a person to be in the room and wouldn’t have kids watching kids.
-
Nobody said that, BTW. But, I would say I have a good idea how these things are handled, especially considering that ASR is modeled directly after HLA, right down to the terminology, etc.
The main point is that it is required by law that kids have unfettered access to a free phone to report abuse. All reports from kids who have attended ASR is that a phone is not available for their use, except for monitored calls to their parents. This is the industry norm and I believe the kids when they say there were disallowed from using the phone as needed to report abuse.
Even the "former ASR counselor" told us that there was no phone for student use. Even you, Who, have stated that there was no phone for their use because they'd probably abuse the privilege - not understanding it is a lawful right, not a privilege.
You change your story more than Alberto Gonzales, with the final refuge being "I don't recall" (as you stated about your kid's therapist that she saw maybe a hundred times -"I don't remember her name"). Pretty hackneyed the way you play both sides of the coin here. Says a lot about what you'll say and do to be "right" as well. It just doesn't play...
-
Nobody said that, BTW. But, I would say I have a good idea how these things are handled, especially considering that ASR is modeled directly after HLA, right down to the terminology, etc.
The main point is that it is required by law that kids have unfettered access to a free phone to report abuse. All reports from kids who have attended ASR is that a phone is not available for their use, except for monitored calls to their parents. This is the industry norm and I believe the kids when they say there were disallowed from using the phone as needed to report abuse.
Even the "former ASR counselor" told us that there was no phone for student use. Even you, Who, have stated that there was no phone for their use because they'd probably abuse the privilege - not understanding it is a lawful right, not a privilege.
You change your story more than Alberto Gonzales, with the final refuge being "I don't recall" (as you stated about your kid's therapist that she saw maybe a hundred times -"I don't remember her name"). Pretty hackneyed the way you play both sides of the coin here. Says a lot about what you'll say and do to be "right" as well. It just doesn't play...
I think I was clear? There is a room off the main area. When I asked to use a phone they pointed me to the door, it was unlocked (sure they could lock it during the day). But it was unlocked when I went in. Are there other phones throughout the school? I dont no, didn’t ask......... where was I unclear?
Fairly simple, If they dont have a phone accessible and it is the law then someone should bring it to their attention or ask how they handle it. I don’t think having a phone out in the open with 100 teenagers around is a good idea myself (you would have a 100 pizza's delivered !! Ha,Ha,Ha,), but I am not running the place.
I never had a phone in high school, we had to use the one in the nurses office or principles office (with them listening in!!!!!)
-
.Everyone here is so paranoid and uptight.
No, paranoia is unfounded fear. What we are experienced.
-
Don't conflate the issue. It's not a privilege; it's a right under law for anyone in treatment. We all know these places don't resemble high schools, so you can shitcan that tired analogy. In addition, as anyone who works in telecom can tell you, it's exquisitely simple to set up a dedicated line that dials a sole phone number (say, the state number to report abuse, for example), so no need to worry about, "pizzas."
You say you care about how the kids are treated and want them to be treated as the law prescribes, so please go ahead and forward your concerns for lawful treatment of children to ASR and ask one of your contacts for a written response to the question and post it. Please include the telephone number of the campus' abuse hotline so that I can verify with the Commonwealth. At that point the isue will be settled.
For now, I'll have to go with the reports of attendees and a former staff member that there is indeed no phone to report abuse unfettered rather than your speculation about the matter.
-
psy wrote: With you reporting to the staff... do you really expect them to be open and honest about how they feel about program... Please. I remember parent visits. You had to be positive if you didn't want to get consequences.. I would just love that question: how do you like it here.. I understand Jimmy here loves it. What's your favorite part of program. You HAD to bullshit. You couldn't trust anybody.
Say if your daughter had said something to you about what might have actually been happening... and it shocked you. Provided she was convincing enough for you to get you to question the official line of thought, where would you have gone to confirm the allegation? Well you would probably have gone to staff directly, who would have told you it was a manipulation, laughed at it, told you "well that's a good one.. hahaha".. and then when you leave, your daughter would have gotten in some serious shit... Eventually, they might even be able to convince her that what she saw as "abusive" really wasn't. After all, she was a master manipulator. What's black is white if you believe hard enough. YOU DON'T LEAVE unless you believe it.
How would your daughter know not to report? Well she might have tried with you, had you dismiss it as "manipulative" and given up on turning to you for support. When you go to your own parent, asking for help, and they turn you down, who else do you have to turn to. Nobody. Hope dies.
But what if she never tried? She might have seen what happend to others who tried (or was warned)... or she might have not trusted you enough in the first place (after all, you sent her there, and staff emphasize over and over that parents have full knowledge of what goes on(i, for one, know they don't)).
Come on... When you control communication you can pretty much portray either party in whatever light you want. If you really want to make up with your daughter, ask her to tell her story of what happend to her. And don't say "that's absurd, or, you're exaggerating", or you'll lose her.
At the place you went to that might have been the case, psy,but it just wasn’t like that at ASR. I am sure if a parent was told by their child that they were beating me or haven’t been fed in a week there would be some back lash and the school wouldn’t be happy with the kids making up stories like that. But if the kid was that unhappy to the level they needed to tell stories to that degree they would probably just leave anyway walk out or leave the program.
I asked my daughter if she thought ASR was abusive and she “no”. Where there parts you thought were bordering on abusive and she said “no”. I asked her if she could go back to the day she started and change one thing about ASR what would it be. She thought for a moment and finally said the phone calls. We only got to talk 20 minutes a week or twice a week but she wished it could have been longer. Did people listen in to their calls? No, there was a counselor present when the kids were calling home. I actually used the phones they used and it was in an open area there was a table which was partitioned off so 4 to six kids could talk at once. The counselor was in the room to intervene :wink: in case any major conflicts broke out or the child needed support. We talk about her time at ASR periodically, I may bring it up from time to time based on things I hear on fornits and she brings it up if she hears from a friend in her old peer group. So the topic isn’t avoided and is far from a sore or uncomfortable subject for us.
Hmm... Never alone communicating with parents. Daughter believes ASR not to be abusive (don't leave until you believe that...). Hey... A girl wrote a book about PV claiming it wasn't abusive... When you read what she went through in detail... it was abuse. but abuse is one of those thigns that was redefined... Where are the counterpoints here?
Oh it does not matter if there are mountains of evidence against ASR or not. The school is young. The milieu control is in place (that means communications) as well as other factors which make it easy to contain abuse if it exists.
So you want to really know what happened. Go read some of what other survivors of ASR had to say, and ask your daughter about those specific allegations. My guess is you'd be surprised at what she doesn't consider abuse.
-
We all know these places don't resemble high schools
We do?
For now, I'll have to go with the reports of attendees and a former staff member that there is indeed no phone to report abuse rather than your speculation about the matter.
The staff member may be right, he knows more than I do if he worked there.
I didn’t see where I was speculating, just passing along what I know. I don’t see a problem with their set up, personally, it seems to work well for the kids and the parents. I think what many kids would like is more phone time not privacy, is the feed back I have heard. If they feel they are being unfairly treated they should tell their parents when they talk to them.
If someone feels this falls short of a standard it should be brought to someone’s attention to get it clarified, so they can be comfortable with it, I don’t see this as a big deal to resolve.
-
We all know these places don't resemble high schools
We do?
For now, I'll have to go with the reports of attendees and a former staff member that there is indeed no phone to report abuse rather than your speculation about the matter.
The staff member may be right, he knows more than I do if he worked there.
I didn’t see where I was speculating, just passing along what I know.
Based on what??? What the PR departments told you? Do you have any idea how many lies my parents were told... And it was only years later that i found out the extent of it, and cleared it up. Their lies sounded plausible. (after all, they get to practice the same shtick all day every day)
I don’t see a problem with their set up, personally, it seems to work well for the kids and the parents. I think what many kids would like is more phone time not privacy, is the feed back I have heard. If they feel they are being unfairly treated they should tell their parents when they talk to them.
Oh yeah... SHIT... i mean it worked reeeeel well when I tried it. *click*
I don’t see this as a big deal to resolve.
then you are truly less intelligent than I originally ... wait I take that back. I was about right.
-
We all know these places don't resemble high schools
We do?
For now, I'll have to go with the reports of attendees and a former staff member that there is indeed no phone to report abuse rather than your speculation about the matter.
The staff member may be right, he knows more than I do if he worked there.
I didn’t see where I was speculating, just passing along what I know. I don’t see a problem with their set up, personally, it seems to work well for the kids and the parents. I think what many kids would like is more phone time not privacy, is the feed back I have heard. If they feel they are being unfairly treated they should tell their parents when they talk to them.
If someone feels this falls short of a standard it should be brought to someone’s attention to get it clarified, so they can be comfortable with it, I don’t see this as a big deal to resolve.
OK, this is what I wanted to know and for you to enumerate. Even if it's illegal to treat children this way, it's fine with you. If you feel otherwise, then who better to resolve it than you? You are the one that has hooks in ASR - ask them for a response and post the abuse hotline number if they have one. "I know it's illegal, but I won't lift a finger to get it resolved or up to code"? What happened to caring about the kids' legal rights?
Once more, it's the law that any child in treatment must have access to a free phone to report abuse. You are saying it's OK with you and you condone (or at least won't bother to look into it) that the children aren't being treated in accordance with the law. Thank you at least for admitting it to us.
-
We all know these places don't resemble high schools
We do?
For now, I'll have to go with the reports of attendees and a former staff member that there is indeed no phone to report abuse rather than your speculation about the matter.
The staff member may be right, he knows more than I do if he worked there.
I didn’t see where I was speculating, just passing along what I know. I don’t see a problem with their set up, personally, it seems to work well for the kids and the parents. I think what many kids would like is more phone time not privacy, is the feed back I have heard. If they feel they are being unfairly treated they should tell their parents when they talk to them.
If someone feels this falls short of a standard it should be brought to someone’s attention to get it clarified, so they can be comfortable with it, I don’t see this as a big deal to resolve.
OK, this is what I wanted to know and for you to enumerate. Even if it's illegal to treat children this way, it's fine with you. If you feel otherwise, then who better to resolve it than you? You are the one that has hooks in ASR - ask them for a response and post the abuse hotline number if they have one. "I know it's illegal, but I won't lift a finger to get it resolved or up to code"? What happened to caring about the kids' legal rights?
They're property.
Once more, it's the law that any child in treatment must have access to a free phone to report abuse. You are saying it's OK with you and you condone (or at least won't bother to look into it) that the children aren't being treated in accordance with the law. Thank you at least for admitting it to us.
You're fighting a losing battle. This is a parent who will always find another excuse, no matter how many you blow away. He needs to believe.
-
Hmm... Never alone communicating with parents. Daughter believes ASR not to be abusive (don't leave until you believe that...). Hey... A girl wrote a book about PV claiming it wasn't abusive... When you read what she went through in detail... it was abuse. but abuse is one of those thigns that was redefined... Where are the counterpoints here?
Oh it does not matter if there are mountains of evidence against ASR or not. The school is young. The milieu control is in place (that means communications) as well as other factors which make it easy to contain abuse if it did exist.
So you want to really know what happened. Go read some of what other survivors of ASR had to say, and ask your daughter about those specific allegations. My guess is you'd be surprised at what she doesn't consider abuse.
Very suspicious of these places I can see. It is for good reason, I am sure. But not all experiences need to be the same.
Look at it this way:
Abuse can be defined and it is also relative. Restraining a child in a car seat for 4 hours will be criminal in 100 years, now we call it safety and you get fined if they are not restrained. Go figure………
Now we count calories and we need to be within a certain range or it is abusive, which is great, I agree with it. But we are the most over weight country in the world (maybe not, I am guessing) so these numbers may change, lets not jump and put an abuse label on every parameter that defines comfort.
When I was young we didn’t have access to phones, period, abuse or no abuse. Now restricting access to a phone seems to be a problem for some people, next each person will need to be connected 24/7, which is great we can accommodate that. We just need to adjust and grow as these things get redefined.
Sorry… going on again… guess I don’t feel we need to define every parameter of our lives so closely. There are reasons for some of the phone restrictions so there should be some latitude given in some circumstances.
-
Once more, it's the law that any child in treatment must have access to a free phone to report abuse. You are saying it's OK with you and you condone (or at least won't bother to look into it) that the children aren't being treated in accordance with the law. Thank you at least for admitting it to us.
Maybe they do! Maybe they have night staff people with cell phones or a designated counselor that they report problems to who carries a phone at all times. The law may have been written before the use of cell phones…lets not be too quick to condemn. I have been there I know there are offices and phones everywhere if kids needed help.
-
You're fighting a losing battle. This is a parent who will always find another excuse, no matter how many you blow away. He needs to believe.
I know what you're saying. I'm not fighting with him. I just wanted him to put it in writing that he knows that ASR is acting illegally and doesn't care, or that he's unsure if ASR is acting illegally and cares so little about the kids he claims to want to help that he won't check and verify, even though he has ready contacts that can answer the question in one quick call or email (but since I don't trust him to report accurately, all I want is the number to the abuse hotline so I can verify with the Commonwealth).
It's not like I don't know where this is going; you see he's already ignored the point completely, said he's fine with the way ASR does things and won't make any effort to insure the kids are being treated in accordance with their lawful rights.
I already know that there is no abuse hotline and the kids can't make private calls to anyone (as reported by a former and pro-ASR staffer in the ASR thread and several former attendees), much less the watchdogs. I simply wanted to illustrate that The Who cares not one iota if the kids are treated illegally and stripped of their human and constitutional rights. The point has been made with extreme clarity: Illegal or not, he condones it and actively supports it.
-
guess I don’t feel we need to define every parameter of our lives so closely.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I don't trust him to report accurately
Look you can choose any law out of the book and accuse me because I wont go and check on it for you.
Do your own work.
We were talking about if kids could call home in privacy or not and we established that they can. So now you want to see if they have 24 hour access to a phone... we need to review the law... does it apply to boarding schools?........ what are the parameters?....do cell phones apply?...
I dont believe they are breaking any laws, because I dont check for you doesnt mean they are guilty. Tough crowd around here...............
-
TheWho is an industry plant, or an emotionally disturbed father, take your pick. Either way, it's a waste of time.
-
We were talking about if kids could call home in privacy or not and we established that they can.
and...
there was a counselor present when the kids were calling home
also...
guess I don’t feel we need to define every parameter of our lives so closely
and...
what are the parameters?....do cell phones apply?...
I love the smell of blatant hypocrisy in the morning (or evening, as it were :wink: )...
-
The counselors were in the room but the kids could talk in private. I know this because I used this area myself. Each child has a pivate area to talk from...
Just wanted to clarify,
Thewho
-
The counselors were in the room but the kids could talk in private
Two mutually exclusive premises here. Sorry, but it doesn't float... There's no privacy at ASR anywhere, much less while kids talk to their folks. Just wanted to clarify...
"Up is down. Black is white. Just wanted to clarify." :roll:
-
Definition: individual(a): concerning one person exclusively; "we all have individual cars"; "each room has a private bath"
So, Who, does your "private bath" have someone in it watching you, too??? :wink:
Turning language upside-down is the program hallmark...
-
I see how that could be confusing to some people. I can be a stickler myself sometimes, Let me clarify:
When the kids call home they sit in a partitioned off area, maybe 4 or more at the table, each with their own cubby. The kids cant hear each other and the counselors cant hear you at a normal speaking voice.
Each person needs to have clothes on or dressed appropriately because there are others in the room.
-
I don't trust him to report accurately
Look you can choose any law out of the book and accuse me because I wont go and check on it for you.
Do your own work.
We were talking about if kids could call home in privacy or not and we established that they can.
Privacy = 4 students and a staff counselor in the room...
This my friends, is called "loading the language"
-
Once again people, TheWho claims that no kids were ever abused at ASR. All these facts mean nothing to him.
-
I don't trust him to report accurately
Look you can choose any law out of the book and accuse me because I wont go and check on it for you.
Do your own work.
We were talking about if kids could call home in privacy or not and we established that they can.
Privacy = 4 students and a staff counselor in the room...
This my friends, is called "loading the language"
I will repost. The use of the word Private was ill chosen:
I can see how that could be confusing to some people. I can be a stickler myself sometimes, Let me clarify:
When the kids call home they sit in a partitioned off area, maybe 4 or more at the table, each with their own cubby. The kids cant hear each other and the counselors cant hear you at a normal speaking voice.
Each person needs to have clothes on or dressed appropriately because there are others in the room.
-
Doggone it, Who-boy. :evil:
-
I never had a phone in high school, we had to use the one in the nurses office or principles office (with them listening in!!!!!)
High schools aren't (yet) "treatment facilities".
-
We all know these places don't resemble high schools
We do?
You've got a whole thread in which you attempt to distinquish them from public schools.
I don’t see a problem with their set up, personally, it seems to work well for the kids and the parents. I think what many kids would like is more phone time not privacy, is the feed back I have heard. If they feel they are being unfairly treated they should tell their parents when they talk to them.
You contridict yourself. It clearly isn't working for the kids if they want more phone time. Is that so much to ask? Why the blanket policy? Even severely mentally distressed get more phone time. Why didn't you want/ demand more phone time with your daughter?
-
I don't trust him to report accurately
Look you can choose any law out of the book and accuse me because I wont go and check on it for you.
Do your own work.
We were talking about if kids could call home in privacy or not and we established that they can.
Privacy = 4 students and a staff counselor in the room...
This my friends, is called "loading the language"
I will repost. The use of the word Private was ill chosen:
I can see how that could be confusing to some people. I can be a stickler myself sometimes, Let me clarify:
When the kids call home they sit in a partitioned off area, maybe 4 or more at the table, each with their own cubby. The kids cant hear each other and the counselors cant hear you at a normal speaking voice.
http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=230679#230679
Each person needs to have clothes on or dressed appropriately because there are others in the room.
re: abuse reporting (http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=231045#231045)
yeah.... and where i was, they did laugh.
RE: Wonderful happy happy place, kids don't slit wrists (http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=231116#231116)
aah.. i remember that one...
-
We were talking about if kids could call home in privacy or not and we established that they can.
"We" did no such thing. We established that the survivor and ex staff have more credibility than you.
So now you want to see if they have 24 hour access to a phone... we need to review the law... does it apply to boarding schools?........
So, ASR is back to being a boarding school. Now, when you and other parents want insurance/IEPs to pay for your "disabled" child's "treatment", they will be a treatment facility.
Fact is, they aren't a boarding school. They are providing mental health services to minors in a residential facility for 14-19 months.
There's a reason hotlines are required in such facilities. History has shown there is a high risk of abuse. Patients need to be able to report abuses, and not to the staff that are abusing them.
I dont believe they are breaking any laws, because I dont check for you doesnt mean they are guilty. Tough crowd around here...............
That's true, as long as they remain classified as a "school". Technically they are violating the law in more than one instance. They need to be licensed as an RTC. And since when do "schools" qualify for insurance reimbursement and tax write-offs for visits to see your "disabled" child?
What a gravy train and absolute fraud this industry is. You and all the rest are beyond pathetic.
-
You contridict yourself. It clearly isn't working for the kids if they want more phone time. Is that so much to ask? Why the blanket policy? Even severely mentally distressed get more phone time. Why didn't you want/ demand more phone time with your daughter?
The system seems to be working well as far as the children’s privacy is concerned. Which is where that comes from. I haven’t heard of any feed back where this was a big issue. My daughter indicated that if she could change one thing about her stay at ASR it would be to increase the telephone time. I don’t see this as a big thing to ask for either, I tend to agree,
As far as severely mentally distressed people go, I wouldn’t know how much communication would be best for them, I am not a doctor. If they are allowed more time on the phone there must be a reason. It must assist with or accelerate their recovery I would imagine.
The parents often talked of the rules they had and we weighed in and discussed our concerns with the counselors and head master etc. More phone time was one, scheduling SAT testing more often was another, I recall. More off campus visits etc. Communication was tough but we understood that they were trying to keep their world small and focused on themselves. Many parents commented that their kids talked to them more from ASR then they did when they were home Ha,Ha,Ha, so I guess it is relative and different for each family.
-
Deborah Wrote:
So, ASR is back to being a boarding school. Now, when you and other parents want insurance/IEPs to pay for your "disabled" child's "treatment", they will be a treatment facility.
Fact is, they aren't a boarding school. They are providing mental health services to minors in a residential facility for 14-19 months..
TBS (Therapeutic boarding school). I don’t think many of the parents are seeking IEP’s or that their kids fell under the title of “Special needs”. Of all the parents I spoke with, none even attempted to claim insurance recovery, they were all out of pocket expensise. I would be willing to bet they dont take kids with IEP's because of extra requirements that go along with it.
There's a reason hotlines are required in such facilities. History has shown there is a high risk of abuse. Patients need to be able to report abuses, and not to the staff that are abusing them
They may or may not meet this requirement, I just don’t know. We would have to pull this law out and take a look at it and see how ASR compares against the requirements.
That's true, as long as they remain classified as a "school". Technically they are violating the law in more than one instance. They need to be licensed as an RTC. And since when do "schools" qualify for insurance reimbursement and tax write-offs for visits to see your "disabled" child?
What a gravy train and absolute fraud this industry is. You and all the rest are beyond pathetic.
I cannot speak to what parents write off on their taxes. None of us would know that, even some of the parents don’t know, their accountants take care of most of the details. I wouldn’t crucify them for that. Why wouldn’t they be classified as a school?
I am not familiar with all the laws but I would lean them more towards a boarding school than an RTC, but that is my opinion. I’ll leave the definition up to the state.
-
Psy referenced :
I don't know if anyone ever got their phone call completely taken away. I got my right to "private" phone calls (a counselor was always in the room monitoring anyway) taken away. I had to have conference calls for a few weeks.
It appears the child lost their phone privilege but still kept communication with the family only it was on a conference level. This happens; the child could be dealing with a specific problem in this area.
1)I think my counselors personally held bachelors degrees. At the time when I was there we had no live-in staff. At night we had "night staff". I think the only qualification for this was a background check.
I believe they have 24 hour staff now.
I don't think it was. At all. I can honestly say that when I was younger pre-ASR there were times when I did use hurting myself to hurt other people, but I grew out of this pretty quickly and what I did at ASR had nothing to do with getting back at anyone
I don’t know about kids that cut themselves and how this is classified. I don’t believe each event is classified as a suicide attempt, though, I think it is more towards inflicting pain on themselves vs taking their lives. I havent done much reading in this area.
I may get hammered for missing the mark on that one
-
As far as severely mentally distressed people go, I wouldn’t know how much communication would be best for them, I am not a doctor. If they are allowed more time on the phone there must be a reason. It must assist with or accelerate their recovery I would imagine.
No, Patient's Rights. Ring a bell?
You can't hold people incommunicado in the 'real' world without proving it's in their best interest.
Communication was tough but we understood that they were trying to keep their world small and focused on themselves.
Doesn't cut the mustard in a mental health facility.
Excerpts:
Massachusetts law defines the rights of mental-health consumers in state facilities with respect to mail, visits, and telephone calls as follows:
Any mentally ill person in the care of the department....... shall be provided with stationery and post-age in reasonable amounts and shall have the right to have his letters forwarded unopened to the governor, to the commissioner, to his personal physician, his attorney, his clergyman, to any court, to any public elected official and to any member of his immediate family. The superintendent may open and restrict the forwarding of any other letters written by said person when in said person's best interest.
A mentally ill person has the right to be visited at all reasonable times by his personal physician, his attorney, and his clergyman, and the right to be visited by other persons unless the superintendent determines that such a visit... would not be in the best interest of the mentally ill person and incorporates a statement of the reasons for any denial of visiting rights in the treatment record of said person. In addition....a mentally ill person in the care of the department shall have....reasonable access to telephones to make and receive confidential calls.....provided, however, that....[this right] may be denied for good cause by the superintendent or his designee and a statement of the reasons for any such denial entered in the treatment record of such a person.2
The DMH Human Rights Handbook makes clear that restrictions of rights must be based on specific, documented clinical judgments made in the here and now, not blanket presumptions based on diagnostic categories or historical generalizations:
The determination to restrict any of these rights is a clinical decision, made by the head of the facility (or designee) in order to avoid serious harm to the consumer or for other good reason in the consumer's best interest. Unless this explicit determination is made for the particular consumer, there may be no restriction. Restrictions should be as limited as possible and still avoid harm to the consumer, and should not occur if there is an alternative, less restrictive way of avoiding the harm.4
Mental health facilities generally assert a duty to prevent residents from harming others. Advocates counter that clinicians do not have a duty to protect third parties from emotional harm and that they have a duty to address behavioral issues raised by the exercise of rights through therapy rather than through control mechanisms.
-
Once again we see Who-boy's ass thoroughly whipped by Deborah. Who-boy must be a glutton for punishment, why else would he keep on?? :rofl:
-
I am not familiar with all the laws but I would lean them more towards a boarding school than an RTC, but that is my opinion. I’ll leave the definition up to the state.
Wrong. Let's take a look at what ASR has to say on the matter.
The Academy at Swift River is a private college preparatory therapeutic boarding school located in western Massachusetts. Swift River fosters personal growth and healthy self-expression in adolescents, inspires academic excellence, and teaches individual responsibility and service to others.
http://www.swiftriver.com/ (http://www.swiftriver.com/)
No confusion there. Of course when the state did show up all the sudden things changed.
http://cafety.org/index2.php?option=com ... f=1&id=279 (http://cafety.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=279)
Apparently when children services came in and investigated ASR several years ago (and found a few violations while there) they wondered why ASR was acting like a RTC but wanting to be classified as a traditional boarding school. Interesting to note while there they made mention that the counselors could not restrict communication in any way without a court order. I guess they havent gotten around to implementing that change yet huh Cindy?
-
I am not familiar with all the laws but I would lean them more towards a boarding school than an RTC, but that is my opinion. I’ll leave the definition up to the state.
As HLA is finding out, you can "lean" 80* toward a boarding school, but if you are warehousing kids 24/7 and providing them mental health services, you are required to be licensed. Hopefully it's just a matter of time before the right group of people come together to make this happen at ASR.
-
Deborah wrote:
Doesn't cut the mustard in a mental health facility. ………Any mentally ill person in the care of the department…..
This is why I say the right law needs to be looked at and compared to the school. I don’t think this is the right law to compare. ASR isn’t classified as a Mental health facility and the children are not classified as mentally ill.
I appreciate the effort of posting the law, but it doesn’t apply here, the same as it doesn’t apply to a local high school or college.
The classification of the school (as defined by the state) needs to be identified and then the correct law needs to be applied.
-
Do u know if ASR has any connection to destisto?
-
There he goes again... doggone that crazy Who!
-
Cindy the only one who is unclear here is you. ASR, like HLA is wanting to have it both ways. Advertise as a theraputic boarding school and treat your residents like they're patients who have no rights. When the state comes around all the sudden its just a run of the mill traditional boarding school.
As evidenced theyve been doing this basically since they opened. It looks like that little con is about to come to an end though.
-
I am not familiar with all the laws but I would lean them more towards a boarding school than an RTC, but that is my opinion. I’ll leave the definition up to the state.
As HLA is finding out, you can "lean" 80* toward a boarding school, but if you are warehousing kids 24/7 and providing them mental health services, you are required to be licensed. Hopefully it's just a matter of time before the right group of people come together to make this happen at ASR.
I can agree with this. These are the types of things that need to be defined. TBS is like a hybrid, cross between boarding school and treatment center.
Someone needs to decide which laws and licenses apply. Hopefully, sooner than later this is ironed out.
-
There he goes again... doggone that crazy Who!
Yep, yep! :o
Git 'im, Jed!! See if you ken hit 'im in the ass!! :exclaim:
-
It already is, in both Mass and GA. The only thing that needs to be "ironed out" is how many of these abusive programs are trying to circumvent the law.
-
There he goes again... doggone that crazy Who!
Yep, yep! :o
Git 'im, Jed!! See if you ken hit 'im in the ass!! :exclaim:
Aw hell, Jim-bob...looks like he done hopped on down the trail again..
We'll git 'im, though.. he always comes back thissaway...
-
There he goes again... doggone that crazy Who!
Yep, yep! :o
Git 'im, Jed!! See if you ken hit 'im in the ass!! :exclaim:
Aw hell, Jim-bob...looks like he done hopped on down the trail again..
We'll git 'im, though.. he always comes back thissaway...
Don't tell me you two fools done let 'im get away AGAIN, now.. :flame:
-
C'mon, Paw, let up on them boys. Come on now, boys! I jest know ye can get em! Just don't run him through my cow pasture, That poor critter's practically givin cottage cheese already, what with all that ruckus puttin the lid on that strange Ottowa feller.
-
I never had a phone in high school, we had to use the one in the nurses office or principles office (with them listening in!!!!!)
quote]
thats preposterous. No highschool principal "listens in" on the students call. If that happened to u..u have room for a lawsuit.
And if program wants to go for it :D , you'll have one from him too!
thats all Im saying (no more who dialogue)
-
I never had a phone in high school, we had to use the one in the nurses office or principles office (with them listening in!!!!!)
quote]
thats preposterous. No highschool principal "listens in" on the students call. If that happened to u..u have room for a lawsuit.
And if program wants to go for it :D , you'll have one from him too!
thats all Im saying (no more who dialogue)
You are probably a bit younger than I am. But when we needed to call home the nurse or principle would call for us while we were standing there. After they were done they would ask “Would you like to talk to your son?” Then I was put on… the nurse or principle (depending on which room I was in) would busy themselves with paperwork but were within 5 feet of me so there was no privacy. We never though of suing anyone back then, there were no cell phones.
-
You are probably a bit younger than I am. But when we needed to call home the nurse or principle would call for us while we were standing there. After they were done they would ask “Would you like to talk to your son?” Then I was put on… the nurse or principle (depending on which room I was in) would busy themselves with paperwork but were within 5 feet of me so there was no privacy.
OK, so one person within 5 feet of you doing paperwork while you're making a call = "no privacy," BUT four kids at a single table with a counselor monitoring = "privacy"?
You seem confused about this.
Also, from an ASR attendee:
"And there were call logs taken by the staff there about how your conversation went . If we complained about the school our counselors would most likely start playing the whole "you're manipulating your parents to get out of here", or pull the whole other "you could be at [insert hellhole here]. Somehow, it always came back to you and your issues. "
Hmmmm... This kid reports not only complete lack of privacy, but also a staff member recording notes about his phonecalls for "group therapy" purposes.
Me thinks The Who is having a little problem with truth-telling again...
-
DJ Wrote:
OK, so one person within 5 feet of you doing paperwork while you're making a call = "no privacy," BUT four kids at a single table with a counselor monitoring = "privacy"?
Ha,Ha,Ha…. I thought I cleared this up…but I keep doing it !!!...sorry....let me repost:
The use of the word Private was ill chosen:
I can see how that could be confusing to some people. I can be a stickler myself sometimes, Let me clarify:
When the kids call home they sit in a partitioned off area, maybe 4 or more at the table, each with their own cubby. The kids cant hear each other and the counselors cant hear you at a normal speaking voice.
Hmmmm... This kid reports not only complete lack of privacy, but also a staff member recording notes about his phonecalls for "group therapy" purposes.
I didn’t see this said, go back and look. No mention of group therapy or notes. “Call Logs” are a record (time and date) that the child has called home. They are not required to do this but it is good practice for the sake of the child to insure each child has called home. If the school became regulated they may be required to keep these records for 7 years.
What a log typically wants to document is “Student name”, Time, location, date and a brief description or check box indicating if the call was successful/completed or not.
Hope this helps to clear it up.
-
I didn’t see this said, go back and look. No mention of group therapy or notes.
Nalex18 wrote: If you complained to your parents on the phone you had some nice things coming to you in group. It was kind of a "tough shit" type thing. My parents really hate talking about it, but from what has slipped out I guess they sort of got the same response.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p= ... all#231045 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=231045&highlight=phone+call#231045)
“Call Logs” are a record (time and date) that the child has called home. They are not required to do this but it is good practice for the sake of the child to insure each child has called home. What a log typically wants to document is “Student name”, Time, location, date and a brief description or check box indicating if the call was successful/completed or not.
Apparently more than name, date, time.
If the school became regulated they may be required to keep these records for 7 years.
Is that a problem? It would be interesting to see what notes were jotted down to bring up in "group". Also interesting to know how that's handled in/by group.
-
I was refering to this quote:
"And there were call logs taken by the staff there about how your conversation went . If we complained about the school our counselors would most likely start playing the whole "you're manipulating your parents to get out of here", or pull the whole other "you could be at [insert hellhole here]. Somehow, it always came back to you and your issues. "
I didnt see mention of notes or group therapy in the reference by DJ.
-
Same poster, same thread, same page, dingbat! "I'm not going to do your work for you." Go back and read the kid's posts. Calls were monitored and the content of the calls was brought up by counselors in group. So not only did they take notes on the content of the calls, those notes were used in group, as Nalex said.
I wonder, if the counselors "couldn't hear" the kids, how did they get detailed notes of the conversations to use in groups? Maybe you can explan that for the rest of us, Who.
-
Deborah Wrote:
Apparently more than name, date, time.
I did indicate more than Name, date and time. Maybe you missed it.
Here it is again:
TheWho wrote: What a log typically wants to document is “Student name”, Time, location, date and a brief description or check box indicating if the call was successful/completed or not.
These are typical logs. Each place of business adds or diminishes as they see fits best for their business.
Is that a problem? It would be interesting to see what notes were jotted down to bring up in "group". Also interesting to know how that's handled in/by group.
It may or may not be interesting… could be comments like “Distressed after call home” , “Phone call didn’t go well based on attitude afterwards”. I think knowing that a child is having difficulty it should not be left to fester quietly and it would be a good heads up to the child’s counselor that he/she isn’t feeling too well after “Home contact” and may need to talk or deal with an issue that has risen to the top.
I know many may feel the phone call home can be no big deal (just let them be ), but many kids struggle with this and can be a big issue. There are many issues that can arise, conflicts that have not been touched upon before or newly emerging emotions. I think it would be irresponsible to place a child in a situation like this without someone nearby for support if they need it.
As far as regulation is concerned, I am all for it. It makes things more difficult for the school but from a parents and child’s perspective it can help in some areas.
-
Actually, psy provided the link to that message in a response to Who.
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 647#255647 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=255647#255647)
Who doesn't always bother following the discussion. He prefers to shoot from the hip with his responses. One time as expert, then a know-nothing, when a question comes up he doesn't want to respond to.
BTW, thinking this thread should be split from this post:
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 542#255542 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=255542#255542)
and move it to the Aspen forum.
Anyone disagree?
-
Well, I've had some free time today (been out sick with that nasty bronchitis going around), so I decided to follow up on my own with ASR about their abuse hotline, or lack thereof as it were.
So I called up there posing as a parent wanting to enroll my kid but having "a few questions about policies" and such. I was passed from the operator to a very pleasant sounding administrative-type person named "Kara".
After some more or less idle chit-chat, I asked "How often can my son call home?" The reply was "Once weekly, with his counselor."
I then asked "Can he talk to me in private on the phone without a counselor listening?" The reply was "That's not our policy. In our experience, unmonitored contact just leads to a bunch of manipulation, crying, yelling and things like that. We don't view that as productive."
I then asked "What if something happens to him - he gets in a fight or has an accident or something?" The reply was "In that case, you'll be contacted by his counselor to let you know what's going on."
Finally, having laid the groundwork, I popped the question: "I have read a lot of stuff on the internet about kids being abused by staff at residential facilities and it worries me. Will my son have access to a phone to report any abuses? Sorry, I don't mean to sound paranoid or anything - you came highly recommended to me. But, say something did happen?" The answer: "We don't provide phones for student use. Something like that would be reported to his counselor who would then take the appropriate steps to address it."
So, there you have it, people. No unmonitored calls and no access to an abuse hotline at ASR.
Hey, Deb, can we get these posts moved over to the ASR thread? It's valuable information that won't be seen when searching here for ASR information... (EDIT) I was thinking the same thing myself, Deb. Good idea to move it!
Thanks for encouraging me to call and find out for myself, Who. It was well worth the time!
-
That’s funny I asked the same thing and spoke with Millie or Mollie?. Here is what I got:
asked "How often can my daughter call home?" The reply was "Once weekly, sometimes more but we schedule it on a weekly basis.
I asked if she could talk to me in a private area and I was told, no. The phones calls are made in an area with others, although the students can talk freely there is a counselor present in the room.
She never spoke to me about manipulation, crying, yelling etc. as DJ indicated (From a business perspective this would never be said, not good for business, these are potential customers, it has to be kept positive)
I asked if my daughter could contact me in an emergency and she said “yes. Her counselor would contact you and then you would speak to you daughter”.
I knew the answer already because this already happened to me when my daughter attended.
I ask if they had access to a phone at night, no they did not, emergencies would be reported to the night staff in charge and they would make the decision.
Don’t want 100 pizzas showing up a 2 a.m. I guess (ha,Ha,). Sorry, but I was a teenager once and I know this would be done.
So good try DJ, you were partially right. The restricted phone access is there for a reason and part of that reason is to keep the kids safe.
-
So you're saying Kara is a liar then? Hmmmmm... Interesting. Even when ASR's own personnel says something that doesn't add up to what you've been pushing you call them liars.
Anyway, we have established that there is no mechanism for reporting abuse at ASR and kids have no access to an abuse hotline as required by law.
Glad to clear that up. Even the Who agrees - no abuse hotline, no unmonitored calls, no access to phones unless explicitly directed by staff. Good.
BTW, I already debunked you "pizza story" earlier in the thread. Any telecom guy or gal, at the cost of about $40, can install a dedicated line that rings to only one number, like the state abuse hotline for example, so, once more, that story is pure hogwash.
Now, let's examine this, Who: Let's say, for argument's sake that a kid's very own counselor sexually abuses him/her. ASR's plan, as you verified with them like I did, is to have that child report the abuse directly to the person that perpetrated it.
This is downright scary and paves the road for child abuse. I would avoid this facility at all costs. It's dangerous!
-
Now, let's examine this, Who: Let's say, for argument's sake that a kid's very own counselor sexually abuses him/her. ASR's plan, as you verified with them like I did, is to have that child report the abuse directly to the person that perpetrated it.
This is downright scary and paves the road for child abuse. I would avoid this facility at all costs. It's dangerous!
Sure, DJ, of course it is possible. The guy on the abuse hot line could talk dirty to the kids also, but it is highly unlikely. The hot line never helped the kids who were raped by their teacher at public school, so, the way I see it, you need to do 2 things to convince us one is needed:
1. Determine if the law requires a “Hot Line” to be installed in the school.
2. How effective is this hot line in keeping kids safe.
-
Well, since I worked as a therapist for many years, I can answer this. If you don't like my answer, you can "do the work yourself"!
One, anywhere that provides treatment to 24/7 residents (as ASR does) is required by law to provide unfettered access to a free telephone to report abuse (Deb posted the Mass law earlier). So, yes, ASR is required by law to do this.
Two, your premise is totally absurd. You said: "The hot line never helped the kids who were raped by their teacher at public school..." (so why help a raped kid at ASR, right? :roll: ) This may be because there is no abuse hotline at public schools :wink: . The kid can go directly to his/her parents or the police. Also, you're just talking out of your butt. You have no idea about these things, you're just looking for wiggle room after you already scored a devastating ground-zero hit on yourself by confirming with ASR and documenting that there is never any unmonitored contact and that no child can ever use a phone unless directed to so by their counselor (their very own abuser in the above scenario - SICK!).
Three, no hotline ever prevented anything, it is simply a mechanism required by law so that the child can report abuse and be protected from further abuse. If you had your way, the staff would be free to rape kids at will with no way for the kid to report it except to their abuser. Again, very sick!
"Sure! Rape the children as much as you want! Just make sure no one orders pizza!" Oy vey. :roll:
-
Who the abuse hotline is monitored, sometimes even recorded. A counselor is in a much better position to abuse the kids then an operator.
Youre also again ignoring that children services already came into ASR and stated the monitoring of communication that went on was illegal. ASR chose to ignore that law as they found it to be.....inconvienent.
-
RB, even responding to "the hotline opertor could talk dirty to the kids" is crazy. In any case, The Who places the same value on physical forcible rape and dirty telephone talk. This is how sick and twisted this guy is!
He has argued that in order to prevent the ordering of pizzas or the dirty talk of the abuse hotline operator ( :roll: God, where do you get this from? ), the kids should be prevented from using the telephone to report abuse by staff, as is current ASR policy documented in the Who's earlier post.
-
Well, since I worked as a therapist for many years, I can answer this. If you don't like my answer, you can "do the work yourself"!
One, anywhere that provides treatment to 24/7 residents (as ASR does) is required by law to provide unfettered access to a free telephone to report abuse (Deb posted the Mass law earlier). So, yes, ASR is required by law to do this.
Two, your premise is totally absurd. You said: "The hot line never helped the kids who were raped by their teacher at public school..." (so why help a raped kid at ASR, right? :roll: ) This may be because there is no abuse hotline at public schools :wink: . The kid can go directly to his/her parents or the police. Also, you're just talking out of your butt. You have no idea about these things, you're just looking for wiggle room after you already scored a devastating ground-zero hit on yourself by confirming with ASR and documenting that there is never any unmonitored contact and that no child can ever use a phone unless directed to so by their counselor (their very own abuser in the above scenario - SICK!).
Three, no hotline ever prevented anything, it is simply a mechanism required by law so that the child can report abuse and be protected from further abuse. If you had your way, the staff would be free to rape kids at will with no way for the kid to report it except to their abuser. Again, very sick!
"Sure! Rape the children as much as you want! Just make sure no one orders pizza!" Oy vey. :roll:
The law you posted applied to mental hospitals. didnt see anything required for boarding schools or TBS's.
So I guess it is fair to say there is no requirement... the rest is moot
-
DJ what you have to keep in mind is that in Who's deranged mind a hotline isnt needed at ASR even if it is mandated by law. The reason being is that according to him no kids are ever abused at ASR. So really what would they have to report?
It's like a castrati buying a box of condoms. Really when's he going to need them?
-
The law you posted applied to mental hospitals. didnt see anything required for boarding schools or TBS's.
So I guess it is fair to say there is no requirement... the rest is moot
Except they advertise as a theraputic boarding school, they even say so right on their website. So tell us Who, why would they claim to be one thing to potential customers but another to the state?
Could it be to avoid things just like this?
Also why did children services tell them what they were doing was illegal if it doesnt apply to them?
-
I suppose you must not have read it. If you did, you would have seen that Deb posted it.
It applies to any 24/7 residential facility that provides mental health services, like, for example, ASR!
So raped kids are a moot point, huh? SICK. Where did this guy come from? Even the most hardcore program parents I've dealt with never said anything like this. This is truly a disturbed individual...[/quote]
-
I suppose you must not have read it. If you did, you would have seen that Deb posted it.
It applies to any 24/7 residential facility that provides mental health services, like, for example, ASR!
So raped kids are a moot point, huh? SICK. Where did this guy come from? Even the most hardcore program parents I've dealt with never said anything like this. This is truly a disturbed individual...
No, I read it. It doesn’t apply, we have been though this already and established they don’t fall under this law. They aren’t set up to care for the mentally ill or insured thru the state under this category (keep reading). They fall under boarding school which doesn’t have this requirement that I am aware of.
-
First this:
Once more, it's the law that any child in treatment must have access to a free phone to report abuse. You are saying it's OK with you and you condone (or at least won't bother to look into it) that the children aren't being treated in accordance with the law. Thank you at least for admitting it to us.
I have been there I know there are offices and phones everywhere if kids needed help.
Then this:
I ask if they had access to a phone at night, no they did not, emergencies would be reported to the night staff in charge and they would make the decision.
Woops! Caught again...
The night staff ponders... "Hmmm... I just raped this kid. Should I let her use the phone to report it? NAH!"
-
Yet they provide case work services and claim to be a theraputic boarding school, on top of the fact that children services told them they were in clear violation of the law.
Explain that.
-
There have been several mentions of TBS's being compared to Public Highschools to disprove the neccessity of things like unmonitered communication to abuse authorities.
HLA staff used to pull this when we'd complain about the horrendous food at HLA. They would always respond "Well, we had to eat bad food in high school too, all school food is crappy." But the big difference??
YOU GET TO GO HOME EACH DAY AT PUBLIC SCHOOL. You're not forced to eat that food 24/7, 365 days a year. There is a break from the crappy food for nutrition at home.
Same thing with this. TheWho, you may not have had access to private phones from school, but when that 3 O Clock bell rang, and you and your fellow students returned to the comfort of your own home, if something horrible had happened to you that day regarding abuse, could you not use your home phone, or a pay phone, or better yet, just WALK up to the nearest police officer and tell them what happened??? Absolutely! Not the case AT ALL at TBS's. HLA, or ASR (so we're hearing) or any of the mutlitude of programs modeled after these schools.
So all this talk about TBS's being safer than public school, this LONE fact makes that statement laughable! Not even taking into consideration the abuse that HAS gone on and CONTINUES to go on, that you refuse to acknowledge.
At HLA, I was NEVER taken off conference calls. Thats not the little room here the counselor or staff takes notes on the phone call. Thats in the counselors office, my parents on speakerphone, counselors interjecting everytime they didn't agree with what I said. That was my ONLY communication to my parents, along with emails that were first emailed to the counselors, then passed on to the appropriate parties. There was no chance or opportunity for private communication with ANYONE.
Sorry, Who. Nothing you peddle here is changing the truth about this industry. Its NOT. SAFE.
-
So it seems this law doesnt apply to Boarding Schools, high schools, middle schools. Its good to get this cleared up.................
-
Yes Who, tell us more about how many public schools and traditional boarding schools have mandatory therapy three times a week. Tell us how many prevent kids from calling home for weeks at a time.
-
So it seems this law doesnt apply to Boarding Schools, high schools, middle schools. Its good to get this cleared up.................
Guess it's a good thing ASR acknowledges they're a theraputic boarding school then huh?
-
So it seems this law doesnt apply to Boarding Schools, high schools, middle schools. Its good to get this cleared up.................
Boarding schools must be licensed by the DOE and are forbidden from restricting contact, screening mail or monitoring communications.
So we have established ASR violates this law.
Once more, The Who does not care and is not bothered by the fact that abused kids at ASR are illegally prevented from communicating their abuse. This is the most important point of this thread.
As an aside, earlier in the thread, Who stated ASR was a "hybrid," part treatment center and part school. If it's a TC, there must be an abuse hotline. If it's a school, it is forbidden from restricting communications of residents. Take your pick. Either way, ASR proves to be a dangerous place where abuse cannot be reported, and that's just fine with The Who.
He really is a mental defective any way you cut it up.
-
DJ wrote:
He really is a mental defective any way you cut it up.
Ha,Ha,Ha, well in that case I should be required to have an “abuse hot line” in my house… True?
Sorry, DJ, He said, she said…should they… shouldn’t they. This is why we have laws so we need to refer to them for our answer and it is clear that a hot line is not needed.
Wow, we really came a long way from whether a child has enough phone time with his or her parents. Its led us on a good discussion, though. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over time.
-
Yepper. It culminated in your crowning glory! A more mentally defective statement has never been uttered in regard to child rape:
Now, let's examine this, Who: Let's say, for argument's sake that a kid's very own counselor sexually abuses him/her. ASR's plan, as you verified with them like I did, is to have that child report the abuse directly to the person that perpetrated it.
This is downright scary and paves the road for child abuse. I would avoid this facility at all costs. It's dangerous!
Sure, DJ, of course it is possible. The guy on the abuse hot line could talk dirty to the kids also...
I don't know whether to :lol: or ::mecry::
-
I think I made him mad again .... The law is the law DJ .... You can take your frustration out on me, I can take it. But after you calm down the law will still be there, it wont change unless the voters want it to.... thats a lot of people, I am only one.
-
TheWho wrote
This is why we have laws so we need to refer to them for our answer and it is clear that a hot line is not needed.
According to you it is needed.
The law you posted applied to mental hospitals. didnt see anything required for boarding schools or TBS's.
So I guess it is fair to say there is no requirement... the rest is moot
And according to ASR they are in fact a TBS, or better known as a theraputic boarding school.
The Academy at Swift River is a private college preparatory therapeutic boarding school located in western Massachusetts. Swift River fosters personal growth and healthy self-expression in adolescents, inspires academic excellence, and teaches individual responsibility and service to others.
http://www.swiftriver.com/ (http://www.swiftriver.com/)
Therefore we can now safely conclude that ASR is in fact a theraputic boarding school and by your own addmission are subject the law in question. Thanks for clearing that up Cindy, I guess the only thing thats left to figure out is why ASR is so knowingly breaking the law.
Any thoughts?
-
I think I made him mad again .... The law is the law DJ .... You can take your frustration out on me, I can take it. But after you calm down the law will still be there, it wont change unless the voters want it to.... thats a lot of people, I am only one.
Youre right Cindy, the law is the law. So why is ASR breaking it?
-
It's a simple concept, RB.
Houses residents 24/7 and provides therapy = must have abuse hotline.
Plain old school = prohibited by law from screening or prohibiting communications.
Either way, whichever qualification you may choose to use, they are violating the law. You pick which one.
Again, the bigger point here is that The Who condones and advocates disallowing kids from reporting abuse at ASR, as is their policy.
This single belief does more to shed light on the mentality of this man than a semantic argument that, either way, ASR is violating the law. I believe it's important for people to know where he's coming from, and this does it with crystal clarity.
-
you are grasping at straws.... read the requirements, the law and get comfortable with it or make a stand to change it. Lets not blame each other here because of it...... the voters decided lets get them to change their minds!!!
-
Cindy the only one who isnt clear on things here is you. Whether thats because the truth goes against your programming or you're just too stupid I do not know.
Either way the facts are clear, ASR is violating these kids rights, and is breaking the law. No way around it and the more you deny it, the less credibility you have, and the more of the fool you look.
-
TheWHo: Lets imagine for a moment your daughter was abused in horrible ways. Lets not forget that many kids are sexually abused in private programs. Would you of believed your daughter when she came home and told you this happened? Why or why not would you have believed such a horrible thing might happen? How do you think she would of felt if people she told who are supposed to care, when she got home, just laughed in her face and said, that's impossible, couldn't of happened , dear. Maybe you can empathize with a loved one like your daughter since you seem incapable of it with posters online, who are people just the same with parents also.
-
I think I made him mad again .... The law is the law DJ .... You can take your frustration out on me, I can take it. But after you calm down the law will still be there, it wont change unless the voters want it to.... thats a lot of people, I am only one.
Mad? Oh, no. Disgusted? Sick to my stomach? Yes to both.
Sorry to offend, but anyone who condones and advocates for a system that allows a raped child to suffer in silence and prohibits him/her from reporting it is just a deplorable and disgusting human being.
This transcends anger and rises to the level of "Oh my God. I can't believe that someone could possibly believe this or think this way..."
But it's right there, in cold print. You do. :(
-
TheWHo: Lets imagine for a moment your daughter was abused in horrible ways. Lets not forget that many kids are sexually abused in private programs. Would you of believed your daughter when she came home and told you this happened? Why or why not would you have believed such a horrible thing might happen? How do you think she would of felt if people she told who are supposed to care, when she got home, just laughed in her face and said, that's impossible, couldn't of happened , dear. Maybe you can empathize with a loved one like your daughter since you seem incapable of it with posters online, who are people just the same with parents also.
And that's just it right there. TheWho cannot stand to acknowledge when wrong. Despite the fact that it happens all the time he'd rather pretend it never occurs. If his daughter had come up and said "Dad I was abused" or "Dad I was raped" he would have unequivacally accused her of lying and dismissed the entire claim. The reason isnt because he doesnt love his daughter (although he clearly doesnt) but it has more to do with the fact that for him to acknowledge that she had been hurt, he would first have to acknowledge he never should have sent her there. He would have to accept that he was partially to blame. That's something he could never ever do.
-
Then we need to get everyone out to vote !!!
Change the laws!!!
Thewho
-
The law in this matter is fine, its just ASR is breaking it.
-
It's not a legislative issue. It's a law enforncement issue.
The laws are there to protect those children, but ASR simply violates them ("The laws or the children," you ask? Both!), just as other abusive programs have. It takes a looooong time to get action from the state. It took us over four years to get HLA closed or in compliance with the law.
Same with Ivy Ridge, The Whitmore, Casa by the Sea, et al. It just takes time...
-
Again, Read the law... it is clear.
-
TheWHo: Lets imagine for a moment your daughter was abused in horrible ways. Lets not forget that many kids are sexually abused in private programs. Would you of believed your daughter when she came home and told you this happened? Why or why not would you have believed such a horrible thing might happen? How do you think she would of felt if people she told who are supposed to care, when she got home, just laughed in her face and said, that's impossible, couldn't of happened , dear. Maybe you can empathize with a loved one like your daughter since you seem incapable of it with posters online, who are people just the same with parents also.
He can't empathize with someone with whom he's estranged. After 22 months at ASR his daughter went right back to her "old ways," as he put it, then moved away from him and cut him off.
He burned that bridge already.
-
Again, Read the law... it is clear.
Youre right Cindy it is, and ASR is breaking it.
-
Oh for good grief people!
Vern, I hope you understand, at least, that Who is a perfect representative of Program philosophy and personality and that their magic snake oil cure for the insoluible condidtion of adolescence just that, snake oil.
On the bright side, the terrifying danger over which these sadistic lunatics want you to panic is really not all that big a deal. You think partying w/ friends is risky behavior? Well just look to generations past when disaffected young men took other options, like joining the French Foreign Legion or heading out into the Wild West to seek their fame and fortune and the girls just had to suck it up.
I hope the kid is doing alright. He's luck to have an aunt like you who has held fast to that quaint old habit of thinking things through and standing by family even when the rest of the herd is stampeding over a cliff. It'll all work out in the end.
-
The law you posted applied to mental hospitals. didnt see anything required for boarding schools or TBS's.
No, it wasn't. It was for "mental health facilities". Where consumers are involuntary committed and subjected to coerced treatment. There are only three places kids are held against their will 24/7/365- jail, hospitals, and RTC (TBSs, if you prefer).
ASR claims to treat
Emotional and behavioral disturbances
Anxiety disorders including post-traumatic stress disorder
Defiant and/or rebellious
Mild to moderate mood disorders
Academic underachievement and/or school avoidance
Attention disorders
Low self-esteem
Adoption related issues
Unresolved grief reactions including parental divorce
Substance abuse
And provides assessments
Please complete our Assessment Questionnaire to determine if your child may need placement services. All information submitted is confidential. The results will be displayed upon pressing the submit button.
Boarding schools don't recommend such assessments.
There is a $2500 enrollment fee that is due upon admission. If your child is on medication, there will be a $1500 retainer fee for psychiatric services.
Sounds like mental health services to me.
And what boarding school would hire a director/headmaster with a background in mental health?
Bartolomeo brings to the job 20 years of experience in the child and adolescent mental health field in diverse treatment settings such as residential treatment centers, outpatient clinics, hospitals and private practice. Prior to joining ASR, he was the clinical director of Children's Charter, Inc., a specialty clinic for the assessment and treatment of psychological trauma. He was also the director of child and adolescent outpatient group therapy at McLean Hospital in Boston.
-
Wow... five more pages of ::blah:: and ::argue:: today; how productive. :roll:
-
Boarding schools don't recommend such assessments.
But they can if they decide they would like to
Sounds like mental health services to me.
But is it defined as such and recognized by the state in which it resides as a mental health facility?
And what boarding school would hire a director/headmaster with a background in mental health?
ASR does for one. I have a program manager in one of our companies that has a degree in psychology. (not a pharmaceutical company)
-
Wow... five more pages of ::blah:: and ::argue:: today; how productive. :roll:
You wouldn't be trying to discourage dialog, would you? Just don't click on this thread if it's not of interest to you. I'm curious though, what you consider "productive"?
-
No, it wasn't. It was for "mental health facilities". Where consumers are involuntary committed and subjected to coerced treatment. There are only three places kids are held against their will 24/7/365- jail, hospitals, and RTC (TBSs, if you prefer).
If the state would recognize ASR as a mental health facility, get them licensed as such, then I would agree with DJ that a hot line may need to be installed.
But I cant agree to hold a schools feet to the fire over a law that doesnt apply to them.
-
Wow... five more pages of ::blah:: and ::argue:: today; how productive. :roll:
You wouldn't be trying to discourage dialog, would you? Just don't click on this thread if it's not of interest to you. I'm curious though, what you consider "productive"?
Hell, I could turn the same question around and put it to you!
And no I'm not "trying to discourage dialog" fraulein, i swear I'm not (perhaps an interrogation is in order?) because there is plenty of good dialogue as well as good trolling here. I like to peek in to see what's going on regardless. Maybe I just find all of this back-and-forth to be a bit of a waste.
Am I the only one who sees things this way? It would be much more productive to ignore TheWho most of time! What about starting another thread with the evidence and research you put forth instead of giving this flagrant douchebag the constant satisfaction of a reply?? :lol:
I think you spank him well, Deborah... but after a while it must get tiresome, even for you.... :rofl:
-
No, it wasn't. It was for "mental health facilities". Where consumers are involuntary committed and subjected to coerced treatment. There are only three places kids are held against their will 24/7/365- jail, hospitals, and RTC (TBSs, if you prefer).
If the state would recognize ASR as a mental health facility, get them licensed as such, then I would agree with DJ that a hot line may need to be installed.
But I cant agree to hold a schools feet to the fire over a law that doesnt apply to them.
If it's a school, it is bound by law not to restrict commincation/screen mail/provide casework services or manditory therapy. ASR is in violation of the law.
-
Cindy are you really this dumb or just that brainwashed?
If ASR is a TBS then by law they are required to have a hotline in which kids can have unfettered access to as means of reporting abuse.
If ASR is a regular ol school then they are forbidden by law to restrict or monitor communications without a court order.
You pick which one, but either way they are breaking the law.
From the look of things though it would appear they are a TBS. Ive made this concluscion based on the following things:
1. They have mandatory therapy three times a week. Traditional Boarding School's do not do this.
2. They provide assessments, again traditional boarding schools do not do this.
3. When they were investigated by child services for claims of abuse CS stated they were improperly licensed.
4. (and most damning) they themselves fully claim and acknowledge that they are a theraputic boarding school. Even someone with your limitations can see that such an addmission pretty much seals the deal.
-
guest wrote:
If it's a school, it is bound by law not to restrict commincation/screen mail/provide casework services or manditory therapy. ASR is in violation of the law.
Okay, lets get the details of the law. Look at the different ways they can be applied, exemptions etc.and see how ASR sizes up against what the state defines as requirements.
I believe they are presently under the rules of a boarding school so I would start there. If the state decides to recognize them as a Mental health facility then we will need to apply those laws as well and or drop the boarding school requirements.
Its not up to you or I to define it as a school, boarding school, TBS or Mental health facility etc.. It is up to the state
-
You are correct, Robert.
"DSS passed the information on to the state Office of Child Care Services, which sent an investigator, Eric Lieberman, to the academy.
Academy administrators told Lieberman it was true that students were denied sleep for 19 or 20 hours during the first LifeStep session, called "The Truth." Staff and students might stay up all night, then break for a nap between 5 and 7 a.m., then continue the session until 2 the next afternoon, the administrators said.
It (OCCS) cited the school for"using behavior management techniques which subject students to verbal abuse, ridicule and humiliation, denial ofsufficient sleep, and repetitive exercise as a response to an infraction of a rule."
OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily.
This is undeniable proof that ASR is willingly, wontonly and intentionally breaking a law which absolutely does apply to them - and they've been doing it for years.
So this puts this issue to rest. Not only is ASR breaking the law, they've already been cited for it. Thanks for contacting ASR, Who and posting the results of your conversation. You've incriminated them. They must be thrilled about your being their field representative/mouthpiece!
You were saying, Who? :roll: [/quote]
-
And what you keep carefully avoiding is that Child Services of Massachusettess already told them they needed to become licensed as a RTC and ASR advertises as a theraputic boarding school.
If they arent should we add false advertisement to the list of infractions?
Neither they nor you can have it both ways.
If they are an TBS as they claim they are required to have a hotline for kids to report abuse.
If they are a traditional boarding school as only you claim then they are forbidden by law to restrict or monitor communications.
-
Okay, lets get the details of the law. Look at the different ways they can be applied, exemptions etc.and see how ASR sizes up against what the state defines as requirements.
Already done. See previous post. It's illegal to restrict a juvenile's communication without a court order, period.
I believe they are presently under the rules of a boarding school so I would start there.
Yep. And they're also in violation of the law. They were already cited for this law violation by the state.
Got that issue cleared up. Let's move on. Further yapping about it can't change the public record of their blatant violations of childrens' rights under the law.
Next topic.
-
Wow... five more pages of ::blah:: and ::argue:: today; how productive. :roll:
You wouldn't be trying to discourage dialog, would you? Just don't click on this thread if it's not of interest to you. I'm curious though, what you consider "productive"?
Hell, I could turn the same question around and put it to you!
And no I'm not "trying to discourage dialog" fraulein, i swear I'm not (perhaps an interrogation is in order?) because there is plenty of good dialogue as well as good trolling here. I like to peek in to see what's going on regardless. Maybe I just find all of this back-and-forth to be a bit of a waste.
Am I the only one who sees things this way? It would be much more productive to ignore TheWho most of time! What about starting another thread with the evidence and research you put forth instead of giving this flagrant douchebag the constant satisfaction of a reply?? :lol:
I think you spank him well, Deborah... but after a while it must get tiresome, even for you.... :rofl:
:rofl: :tup: ::whip::
-
And what you keep carefully avoiding is that Child Services of Massachusettess already told them they needed to become licensed as a RTC and ASR advertises as a theraputic boarding school.
If they arent should we add false advertisement to the list of infractions?
Neither they nor you can have it both ways.
If they are an TBS as they claim they are required to have a hotline for kids to report abuse.
If they are a traditional boarding school as only you claim then they are forbidden by law to restrict or monitor communications.
This issue is settled. They're classified as a "school" and they are violation of the law, one they've already been found to be breaking. Doesn't matter what TheWho says, the state has already ruled on this subject.
Next topic!
-
You are correct, Robert.
"DSS passed the information on to the state Office of Child Care Services, which sent an investigator, Eric Lieberman, to the academy.
Academy administrators told Lieberman it was true that students were denied sleep for 19 or 20 hours during the first LifeStep session, called "The Truth." Staff and students might stay up all night, then break for a nap between 5 and 7 a.m., then continue the session until 2 the next afternoon, the administrators said.
It (OCCS) cited the school for"using behavior management techniques which subject students to verbal abuse, ridicule and humiliation, denial ofsufficient sleep, and repetitive exercise as a response to an infraction of a rule."
OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily.
This is undeniable proof that ASR is willingly, wontonly and intentionally breaking a law which absolutely does apply to them - and they've been doing it for years.
So this puts this issue to rest. Not only is ASR breaking the law, they've already been cited for it. Thanks for contacting ASR, Who and posting the results of your conversation. You've incriminated them. They must be thrilled about your being their field representative/mouthpiece!
You were saying, Who? :roll:
You are welcome guest!!
The only way any of us can effect change is to question the present conditions and try to get them to improve. Business is a ever evolving process of continual improvement.
ASR is presently meeting all their obligations as far as the law goes, I think we have established that. There are a few who interpret the law differently which is the American way. If enough people feel alike then a vote is taken and the laws are ajusted to suit the majority.
I think everyone is comfortable with where we ended up. Dialog is always healthy.
-
Ha,Ha,Ha,......ya gotta love fornits.
-
You are correct, Robert.
"DSS passed the information on to the state Office of Child Care Services, which sent an investigator, Eric Lieberman, to the academy.
Academy administrators told Lieberman it was true that students were denied sleep for 19 or 20 hours during the first LifeStep session, called "The Truth." Staff and students might stay up all night, then break for a nap between 5 and 7 a.m., then continue the session until 2 the next afternoon, the administrators said.
It (OCCS) cited the school for"using behavior management techniques which subject students to verbal abuse, ridicule and humiliation, denial ofsufficient sleep, and repetitive exercise as a response to an infraction of a rule."
OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily.
This is undeniable proof that ASR is willingly, wontonly and intentionally breaking a law which absolutely does apply to them - and they've been doing it for years.
So this puts this issue to rest. Not only is ASR breaking the law, they've already been cited for it. Thanks for contacting ASR, Who and posting the results of your conversation. You've incriminated them. They must be thrilled about your being their field representative/mouthpiece!
You were saying, Who? :roll:
You are welcome guest!!
The only way any of us can effect change is to question the present conditions and try to get them to improve. Business is a ever evolving process of continual improvement.
ASR is presently meeting all their obligations as far as the law goes, I think we have established that. There are a few who interpret the law differently which is the American way. If enough people feel alike then a vote is taken and the laws are ajusted to suit the majority.
I think everyone is comfortable with where we ended up. Dialog is always healthy.
Meeting their obligations under the law? Are you crazy? You yourself stated earlier in this thread that you called ASR and they told you they didn't allow kids to use the phone, unless monitored by a counselor at the time of the counselor's choosing.
OCCS has cited ASR for violating this law.
What part don't you understand?
-
Was DJ right about your daughter not talking to you anymore?
-
Was DJ right about your daughter not talking to you anymore?
He stated this in his thread. She moved out and stopped speaking to him. Pretty easy to understand why.
-
OK, folks, let's break it down Barney style for everyone again...
First this:
"I have been there I know there are offices and phones everywhere if kids needed help."
Then this:
"The restricted phone access is there for a reason and part of that reason is to keep the kids safe."
Next this:
"Okay, lets get the details of the law...see how ASR sizes up against what the state defines as requirements."
Then shown that this has already been done by the state:
"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy in communications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example, if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."
Finally, in the face of incontrovertible evidence in the form of a previous citation for the exact same offense, this:
"ASR is presently meeting all their obligations as far as the law goes, I think we have established that."
Anybody else sense a little "disconnect" here? A credibility gap, or chasm, as it were?
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive."
Shame on you, Who, for intentionally misleading readers about the truth! It's bad enough that ASR lies to parents, they don't need you adding to the lies.
This guy is just a flat-out liar. Plain and simple. In his own words...
-
ASR is presently meeting all their obligations as far as the law goes, I think we have established that.
We've established that ASR is violating the law by not having a hotline availible to report abuse and monitoring communications.
We've established that ASR advertises as a TBS yet like HLA tells the state they are a traditional school.
This has been discussed and agreed upon. Youre holding up the rest of the class with your refusal to accept the facts.
-
You don't have to let him hold everyone up, buddy. The facts have been laid bare on the table and TheWho was 100% wrong and you were 100% right. I mean, who are people going to believe? The public record of ASR being cited for this offense, or TheWho saying they're in compliance? This guy has no credibility at all It's time to move on, with or without TheWho...
-
Sounds good. So I suppose the next thing should be what steps we can take to force ASR to become properly licensed, and to stop denying these kids their rights.
-
Agreed. You can start here http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=255870#255870 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=255870#255870) and we'll move on from there.
-
You are probably a bit younger than I am. But when we needed to call home the nurse or principle would call for us while we were standing there. After they were done they would ask “Would you like to talk to your son?” Then I was put on… the nurse or principle (depending on which room I was in) would busy themselves with paperwork but were within 5 feet of me so there was no privacy.
OK, so one person within 5 feet of you doing paperwork while you're making a call = "no privacy," BUT four kids at a single table with a counselor monitoring = "privacy"?
You seem confused about this.
Also, from an ASR attendee:
"And there were call logs taken by the staff there about how your conversation went . If we complained about the school our counselors would most likely start playing the whole "you're manipulating your parents to get out of here", or pull the whole other "you could be at [insert hellhole here]. Somehow, it always came back to you and your issues. "
Verbatim Benchmark... They used to say "you should be glad hellhole up on the mountain [in reference to CEDU]... Ironically, Benchmark is worse.
Hmmmm... This kid reports not only complete lack of privacy, but also a staff member recording notes about his phonecalls for "group therapy" purposes.
[/quote]
I've been on the ass-end of that one many times... not fun.
-
BTW, thinking this thread should be split from this post:
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 542#255542 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=255542#255542)
and move it to the Aspen forum.
Anyone disagree?
I think this thread should stay here until it dies off, hits page 4, and then a mod can move the thread to the aspen forum.
What i definately think should happen is to start a new thread for exhausted labeled explicitly "No - Who's allowed!".
-
You are correct, Robert.
"DSS passed the information on to the state Office of Child Care Services, which sent an investigator, Eric Lieberman, to the academy.
Academy administrators told Lieberman it was true that students were denied sleep for 19 or 20 hours during the first LifeStep session, called "The Truth"
Whoo... Somebody put another stake in Mel Wasserman... Sounds like we got PROPHEETS!!!!! whee...
Staff and students might stay up all night, then break for a nap between 5 and 7 a.m., then continue the session until 2 the next afternoon, the administrators said.
It (OCCS) cited the school for"using behavior management techniques which subject students to verbal abuse, ridicule and humiliation, denial ofsufficient sleep, and repetitive exercise as a response to an infraction of a rule."
OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily.
This is undeniable proof that ASR is willingly, wontonly and intentionally breaking a law which absolutely does apply to them - and they've been doing it for years.
So this puts this issue to rest. Not only is ASR breaking the law, they've already been cited for it. Thanks for contacting ASR, Who and posting the results of your conversation. You've incriminated them. They must be thrilled about your being their field representative/mouthpiece!
You were saying, Who? :roll:
[/quote]
I havn't read the next two pages yet.. but i'm guessing he ignores this... or at least enough to bla bla bla on.
-
You don't have to let him hold everyone up, buddy. The facts have been laid bare on the table and TheWho was 100% wrong and you were 100% right. I mean, who are people going to believe? The public record of ASR being cited for this offense, or TheWho saying they're in compliance? This guy has no credibility at all It's time to move on, with or without TheWho...
Aggreed... CRUSH, KILL, DESTROY: ASR! (metaphorically of course)
Any idea on how to get the government to actually do anything about it... All I see so far is a slap on the wrist.
-
Anyone that has been in a debate or pulled their chair up to a meeting may understand or recognize that something is missing........ take a look at the last several pages .........Give it a few minutes ... Take your time............................................................................................................................................ Okay times up, what did you see? Nothing?.... you mean the table is empty? No requirements? No documentation? So what are they all referring to, what law? We have all been listening to chin music all day. People citing this happened, this is required, that is required. But when asked to provide the requirements we hear crickets. They all know ASR meets the requirements and the laws of Massachusetts. They are trying to use laws that apply to a mental hospital and apply it to ASR , which they are not.
Bottom line, take what you read here and ask the school when you call and say you heard it on Fornits, don’t panic they didn’t hang up on you, they need to clear their throats maybe....... and then ask away. They will clear up any concerns you have.
-
Right...so again are you arguing that ASR can be either a traditional boarding school but not required to follow the laws of such an institute or a theraputic boarding school that's not required to follow the laws of such an institute?
Which is it Cindy?
-
They all know ASR meets the requirements and the laws of Massachusetts. They are trying to use laws that apply to a mental hospital and apply it to ASR , which they are not.
If they meet the law's requirements, why were they cited by the state for violating the law? Curious, isn't it?
"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."
We haven't even gotten to this other violation of the law yet, and it's even scarier!
[/b]It (OCCS) cited the school for"using behavior management techniques which subject students to verbal abuse, ridicule and humiliation, denial ofsufficient sleep, and repetitive exercise as a response to an infraction of a rule."[/b]
This is good practice and very therapeutic, which is why ASR was cited fot it. :roll:
Bottom line is that ASR uses dangerous techniques that they've been cited for and illegally restricts communication for which they've also been cited.
-
They all know ASR meets the requirements and the laws of Massachusetts. They are trying to use laws that apply to a mental hospital and apply it to ASR , which they are not.
If they meet the law's requirements, why were they cited by the state for violating the law? Curious, isn't it?
"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."
We haven't even gotten to this other violation of the law yet, and it's even scarier!
[/b]It (OCCS) cited the school for"using behavior management techniques which subject students to verbal abuse, ridicule and humiliation, denial ofsufficient sleep, and repetitive exercise as a response to an infraction of a rule."[/b]
This is good practice and very therapeutic, which is why ASR was cited fot it. :roll:
Bottom line is that ASR uses dangerous techniques that they've been cited for and illegally restricts communication for which they've also been cited.
Yeah. If they use propheets (LGAT), and that's what it definitely sounds like, ritual humiliation, denial of sleep etc... it's definitely there. Been there, experienced that, got the t-shirt (literally... each group got a t-shirt)...
-
If they meet the law's requirements, why were they cited by the state for violating the law?
The old, Documented evidence without the documents statement. This is getting old....show us the Documents
I heard the report praised ASR for having an outstanding program and the state is in the process of using ASR as a model for pilot programs in a few of their high schools. But I guess you just forgot to mention that little piece of information.
-
[/u]"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."[/u]
In case you missed it, here it is again. This is from the local paper. If you think the paper, OCCS and its investigator, Mr. Lieberman are all lying, then take it up with them.
ASR has already been busted for violating kid' rights under law. Case closed.
-
thewho wrote:[/b]
The old, Documented evidence without the documents statement. This is getting old....show us the Documents
I heard the report praised ASR for having an outstanding program and the state is in the process of using ASR as a model for pilot programs in a few of their high schools. But I guess you just forgot to mention that little piece of information.
-
Ha,Ha,Ha... I'm not going to do your busy work. If you have documents that show otherwise, post them.
We have already established these facts and I think everyone is comfortable with where we're at in this debate:
[/u]"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."[/u]
Sorry, Who, but these are the facts. I guess you can take it up with OCCS and investigator Lieberman and try to change the records Ha,Ha,Ha...
I know you get mad mad about this, Who, but you can't change history and the state's records to suit your agenda...Ha,Ha,Ha. You'll have to take this up with the state if you don't like their ruling, not fornits! Do your own work, I'm not going to do it for you. Ha,Ha, Ha...
This is where we're at. If anyone can provide evidence that states otherwise, then we'll have to discuss how that can be interpreted. But right now, we're all in agreement that ASR was cited for violating the law.
-
I have to go with thewho on this one. Anyone can write that and claim it came from a paper.
Show him the link !!
-
To which one? The laws or the article stating ASR had been cited by OCCS?
-
That same article has been posted probably two dozen times here on fornits. TheWho has read it and commented on it before. He wants a link to the law ASR violated, not the link to an article he already read.
The fact that ASR was cited for a violation of the law is proof that the law exists, is it not?
-
It was an article writtem by Stepanie Kraft for the Valley Advocate. It's archived on cafety.org.
So this is where we're at until someone can show otherwise:
Ha,Ha,Ha... I'm not going to do your busy work. If you have documents that show otherwise, post them.
We have already established these facts and I think everyone is comfortable with where we're at in this debate:
[/u]"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."[/u]
Sorry, Who, but these are the facts. I guess you can take it up with OCCS and investigator Lieberman and try to change the records Ha,Ha,Ha...
I know you get mad mad about this, Who, but you can't change history and the state's records to suit your agenda...Ha,Ha,Ha. You'll have to take this up with the state if you don't like their ruling, not fornits! Do your own work, I'm not going to do it for you. Ha,Ha, Ha...
If someone was a convicted rapist, would you not believe rape was against the law unless someone posted the actual law that says it is? That's absurd.
The fact that ASR was cited by state officials for breaking the law is ipso facto proof that the law exists.[/quote]
-
Was DJ right about your daughter not talking to you anymore?
Here's your answer. Even though TheWho went back and deleted the post where he admiited this, it was his admission nonetheless - made in the comfort of anonymity. He later agreed to have all his anon posts linked to his user account after people hounded him about posing as different people (a parent, a kid, even an HLA parent!) while trolling anonymously.
This is the last refuge for someone caught blatantly lying so many times that he has no other excuse but "They altered my posts!" What a LOSER.
:rofl:
That's about the size of it. He hasn't a leg to stand on in an honest debate, so he resorts to attacks and false allegations. I could provide links to many posts that I would've loved to dump. They're still there.
The only one 'editing' Who's posts is Who. Remember the one in which he stated his daughter split and didn't talk to him for 2 years. He apparently forgot he posted that back when he was anon- before his picked a user name. When I linked to it, he promptly deleted it.
Wah, wah, wah. :cry2:
The funny (not "funny ha-ha", but "strange") thing is that he incessantly pimps Aspen, even though his sending his daughter there destroyed their relationship, witihin days of being home "she went back to her old ways," moved out and she no longer has anything to do with him.
It gives a sense of how these people buy into twisted program doctrine. By his own admission, his daughter showed no change at all after 22 months (and $80,000!) and cut him off from her life.
Sure sounds like the program "helped her grow" and "healed the family," huh? :roll:
-
Wow DJ, I didnt realize you are really this bent out of shape since I proved you wrong once again..... I am sorry this is the way you need to respond. You are revealing alot about yourself.
-
Link (http://http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs/residential_regs.pdf) to the EEC (formerly OCCS) licensing regulations. This is from sec 3.07: part 7-(g)
(g) No resident shall be subjected to abuse or neglect, cruel, unusual, severe or corporal punishment including the following practices:
- any type of physical hitting inflicted in any manner upon the body;
- requiring or forcing the resident to take an uncomfortable position
such as squatting or bending or requiring or forcing the resident to repeat
physical movements, when used as punishment;
- punishments which subject the resident to verbal abuse, ridicule or
humiliation;
- denial of visitation or communication privileges with family, when
used as punishment;
- denial of sufficient sleep;
- denial of shelter, bedding, food or bathroom facilities;
- extensive separation from the group.
sec 3.07: part 9 details the rules regarding mail/phone-calls/visits
(9) Visiting, Mail and Telephones.
- (a) The licensee shall have written policies which encourage and support
family visits, mail, telephone calls, and other forms of communication with
family, friends, or other persons.
- 1. Such policies shall be developed with the goal of encouraging
healthy family relationships, maximizing the individual resident's growt
and development, and protecting the residents, staff and program from
unreasonable and unsafe intrusions.
- 2. Such policies shall be distributed to staff and residents, persons othe
than a parent with custody of the child, and parents prior to admission,
when possible, or within 72 hours after admission.
-------------------------------snip---------------------for-readability-------------
- (g) It shall be each resident's right to open and send mail unread by staff
except in accordance with the following circumstances:
- 1. Any restrictions or censorship must be no greater than necessary to
achieve the therapeutic purpose described in the individual service plan.
- 2. Mail restricted or censored must be returned to the sender with
reasons therefore.
- 3. Staff may open and inspect a resident's mail for contraband only in
his or her presence.
- (h) Telephone communications may not be monitored or unreasonably
restricted unless there are specific therapeutic reasons justifying such
limitations.
- 1. Such therapeutic reasons must be developed in the child and/or teen parent's
individual service plan and must be no greater than necessary to achieve the
therapeutic purpose.
- 2. If phone conversations are monitored, the parties to the conversations
must be informed.
- (i) Communication with a resident's social worker, attorney, or clergy
person may not be prohibited, restricted or censored.
[/li][/list]
-
Wow DJ, I didnt realize you are really this bent out of shape since I proved you wrong once again..... I am sorry this is the way I want you to respond. You are revealing alot about yourself.
"DJ repeated what I said! He's bad!" ::crybaby::
If you don't want these details to be public, don't say them in the first place.
-
Fixed some stuff in my last post....
-
Okay, Someone came thru it looks like…Thanks guest... Let me get my glasses on. Ahhhh EEC, we have been thru this. They fall under the requirements of Private Residential Schools not serving children with special needs (http://http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs/RP%20Licensing%20Requirements.pdf), so they don’t need a residential license. The stickler here as I remember was the definition of “Special needs”. In Massachusetts you need an I.E.P. developed for your child and if I remember correctly 30% or more of the students need to qualify under this definition to require the school to seek a residential license…I am sure greater than 90% if not all the kids do not have an IEP and are not on a state ED plan…..anyway that is a different battle.
But anyway looking at sec 3.07 part 7 and part 9 that was provided for us:
Part 7: No resident shall be subjected to abuse or neglect, cruel, unusual, severe or corporal punishment
Looking back on the past few pages I don’t see any disagreement that they do indeed meet these requirements…. Lets move on………
Okay here is where we had our discussion, let’s take a look:
Part 9: Visiting, Mail and Telephones
“Any restrictions or censorship must be no greater than necessary……” Okay
“Staff may open and inspect a resident's mail for contraband “ Okay
“Telephone communications may not be monitored or unreasonably
restricted unless there are specific therapeutic reasons justifying such
limitations…………………………. If phone conversations are monitored, the parties to the conversations
must be informed” Okay, I think we mentioned the counselors keep a log to ensure each child completes the phone call and if any problems occurred, so they are well within this requirement.
So as far as we see ASR is meeting or exceeding these standards as I had indicated.
There was mention of a report from a walk thru or inspection, but we haven’t seen it yet.
-
I get the distinct feeling Who is making things up as he goes.
-
It was an article writtem by Stepanie Kraft for the Valley Advocate. It's archived on cafety.org.
So this is where we're at until someone can show otherwise:
Ha,Ha,Ha... I'm not going to do your busy work. If you have documents that show otherwise, post them.
We have already established these facts and I think everyone is comfortable with where we're at in this debate:
[/u]"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."[/u]
Sorry, Who, but these are the facts. I guess you can take it up with OCCS and investigator Lieberman and try to change the records Ha,Ha,Ha...
I know you get mad mad about this, Who, but you can't change history and the state's records to suit your agenda...Ha,Ha,Ha. You'll have to take this up with the state if you don't like their ruling, not fornits! Do your own work, I'm not going to do it for you. Ha,Ha, Ha...
If someone was a convicted rapist, would you not believe rape was against the law unless someone posted the actual law that says it is? That's absurd.
The fact that ASR was cited by state officials for breaking the law is ipso facto proof that the law exists.
[/quote]
This is the most direct source we have stating the facts about the state's inspection of ASR resulting in at least two citations for violating the law.
I think we're all comfortable with the state's findings and the journalist's accurate reporting of it. We all agree.
So this is where we're at until we see some proof that the journalist was lying about the state's two citations.
I know certain people would like to say that the reporter was lying in the article, but they'll have to take it up with her or the state. We have established that these events took place and that the record is clear.
-
They fall under the requirements of Private Residential Schools not serving children with special needs, so they don’t need a residential license.
This isnt true by any means. "Special Needs" in Massachusettes is very broad. A kid with dyslexia is considered special needs, as are kids in which the school requires mandatory therapy for. I spoke today with the OCCS today asking for an exact definition of what constitutes special needs. They have promised to email me such a definition straight away, so once again Who you can look forward to being embarrassed.
In Massachusetts you need an I.E.P. developed for your child
Back up this claim please. It isnt true but I'd like to see you try.
and if I remember correctly 30% or more of the students need to qualify under this definition to require the school to seek a residential license…I am sure greater than 90% if not all the kids do not have an IEP and are not on a state ED plan…..anyway that is a different battle.
Funny you mention that. According to the licenser I spoke with today the 30% rule came about because of ASR's whining. See the last time OCCS came in, they found ASR in violation of several laws and cited them stating they needed to become licensed as a RCF. ASR cried to the legesilature and got them to enact this 30% law. It worked back then only because ASR had literally just opened their doors and special needs was soley considered kids with IEP's. Thankfully the law has caught up with them and special needs encompasses so much more. ASR will not be able to hide behind anything this time and neither will you Who.
-
Part 7: No resident shall be subjected to abuse or neglect, cruel, unusual, severe or corporal punishment
Looking back on the past few pages I don’t see any disagreement that they do indeed meet these requirements…. Lets move on………
Who, don't try to bullshit me. The subparts of part 7 outline the very things cited in the news story.
Part 9: Visiting, Mail and Telephones
“Any restrictions or censorship must be no greater than necessary……” Okay
“Staff may open and inspect a resident's mail for contraband “ Okay
“Telephone communications may not be monitored or unreasonably
restricted unless there are specific therapeutic reasons justifying such
limitations…………………………. If phone conversations are monitored, the parties to the conversations
must be informed” Okay, I think we mentioned the counselors keep a log to ensure each child completes the phone call and if any problems occurred, so they are well within this requirement.
So as far as we see ASR is meeting or exceeding these standards as I had indicated.
Again, halt the b.s.
ASR did not adequately meet the requirements in regards to a "therapeutic need" to monitor phone calls. It was a program wide policy and not specific to the child's individual service plan as called for in sec 3.07: part 9-(h1). This was a violation cited in the news report and unless you can show that the reporter lied it stands.
-
Who, dude, the horse is dead, stop beatin it.
The issue of licensing and 'special needs' was hashed to death in this thread:
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 666#248666 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=248666#248666)
From that thread:
A Group Care Program is a program or facility that provides care and custody for one or more children by anyone other than a relative by blood, marriage or adoption on a regular 24-hour a day, residential basis.
Group care program includes private residential schools that provide to children with special needs in which children with special needs constitute 30% or more of the school?s population.
Special Services are any services provided to children with special needs by a private residential school that are special education services similar to those referred to at 603 CMR 18.05(3)(a) and (b); or social, psychological or psychiatric services; or self-help skills or activities of daily living training.
A Child with special needs is a child who, because of a disability consisting of a developmental delay or an emotional, communication, specific learning impairment or combination thereof, is or would be unable to progress effectively in a regular school program. This may include, but not be limited to, a school age child with special needs as determined by an evaluation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3, and as defined by the Department of Education in 603 CMR 28.00.
Group care program includes but is not limited to:
*programs serving teen parents under the age of 16 years;
*transition to independent living programs;
*private residential schools that provide special services to children with special needs in which children with special needs constitute 30% or more of the school?s population; and
*group residences or group homes.
ASR provides assessments, requires group/individual therapy, and treats the following 'special needs':
Emotional and behavioral disturbances
Anxiety disorders including post-traumatic stress disorder
Defiant and/or rebellious
Mild to moderate mood disorders
Academic underachievement and/or school avoidance
Attention disorders
Low self-esteem
Adoption related issues
Unresolved grief reactions including parental divorce
Substance abuse
~~
If you feel a need to do something productive, Who, why don't you read through the regs ASR should be subject to and list those you belive would 'interfere' with treatment, one of your favorite contentions.
-
thewho wrote:[/b]
The old, Documented evidence without the documents statement. This is getting old....show us the Documents
I heard the report praised ASR for having an outstanding program and the state is in the process of using ASR as a model for pilot programs in a few of their high schools. But I guess you just forgot to mention that little piece of information.
Sooooo. HLA received a Commendation from a Senator. Boy, isn't she re-evaluating. Anyone, ANYone can pull a scam... until they get caught.
It's a bitch you have no allies, but stop posting anon, Who. That's manipulating the readers, and totally 'out of agreement'. Sounds like you might need a year-and-a-half living in isolation from your family and subjected to the most perverse forms of BM.
-
I have to go with thewho on this one. Anyone can write that and claim it came from a paper.
Show him the link !!
Oh dear lord, he's gone schizzy again. Talking about himself in third person.
-
Funny you mention that. According to the licenser I spoke with today the 30% rule came about because of ASR's whining. See the last time OCCS came in, they found ASR in violation of several laws and cited them stating they needed to become licensed as a RCF. ASR cried to the legesilature and got them to enact this 30% law. It worked back then only because ASR had literally just opened their doors and special needs was soley considered kids with IEP's. Thankfully the law has caught up with them and special needs encompasses so much more. ASR will not be able to hide behind anything this time and neither will you Who.
So you really believe that some person crying at the front desk saying: “Please don’t write us up, I’ll lose my job if you do” would be enough to change the laws in Massachusetts?
You also mentioned that this occurred when ASR” literally opened their doors” as you stated…..hmmmmmm. So lets see…….ASR started up, opened their doors and had the EEC (as it is called now) come over to visit, found some violations, ASR corrected them and now, a decade or 2 later, you are having heart burn with it. I still haven’t seen the report citing these violations or if they exist, but if they occurred at start up, why bother?
If a violation occurred 10 or 20 years ago don’t you think they would have follow-up and verified if they made changes? And if they haven’t followed up why would turning over control to the state in the form of regulation to these people make our kids any safer?
This is nuts! What newspaper did this come from …… this just doesn’t pass the sniff test
-
This is the most accurate information available. Until someone offers proof that the events in the article didn't happen or that the reporter was lying, it's what we'll go with.
I know it gets TheWho bent out of shape to be proven wrong on this but I never thought he'd go off the deep end editing out key parts of the regs to hide them because ASR is in violation. Ha,Ha,Ha...that's just too funny when he does things like that just to push an agenda.
But these facts won't go away. ASR has been cited in violation of at least two laws. I think we've established that beyond doubt and everyone is comfortable with it here.
It was an article writtem by Stepanie Kraft for the Valley Advocate. It's archived on cafety.org.
So this is where we're at until someone can show otherwise:
Ha,Ha,Ha... I'm not going to do your busy work. If you have documents that show otherwise, post them.
We have already established these facts and I think everyone is comfortable with where we're at in this debate:
[/u]"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."[/u]
Sorry, Who, but these are the facts. I guess you can take it up with OCCS and investigator Lieberman and try to change the records Ha,Ha,Ha...
I know you get mad mad about this, Who, but you can't change history and the state's records to suit your agenda...Ha,Ha,Ha. You'll have to take this up with the state if you don't like their ruling, not fornits! Do your own work, I'm not going to do it for you. Ha,Ha, Ha...
If someone was a convicted rapist, would you not believe rape was against the law unless someone posted the actual law that says it is? That's absurd.
The fact that ASR was cited by state officials for breaking the law is ipso facto proof that the law exists.
This is the most direct source we have stating the facts about the state's inspection of ASR resulting in at least two citations for violating the law.
I think we're all comfortable with the state's findings and the journalist's accurate reporting of it. We all agree.
So this is where we're at until we see some proof that the journalist was lying about the state's two citations.
I know certain people would like to say that the reporter was lying in the article, but they'll have to take it up with her or the state. We have established that these events took place and that the record is clear.[/quote]
Let's move on... As soon as Who talks with the reporter and establishes that she was lying about the content of the article we will revisit. Time to move on to other items.
This has been fun, Ha,Ha,Ha...just kidding.
-
As soon as Who talks with the reporter and establishes that she was lying about the content of the article we will revisit.
State violations are public record......... Hmmmm how come there is no record?
"Breaking news, The power has gone out at ASR, I am here live now in front of the student lounge and if the phones lines are not up in the next 10 minutes I predict a major violation of communication of EEC code 3.07 Part 9 will occur. I will verify this myself, no need for paperwork or filing for public record purposes... this Amy Cross, signing off from Cummington, MA..... over to you Herb..... Thanks Amy, things are getting wild over there......................
-
Link to the article (http://http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:9y3pmeLJ2WgJ:cafety.org/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D279+asr+cafety&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=opera)
-
As soon as Who talks with the reporter and establishes that she was lying about the content of the article we will revisit.
State violations are public record......... Hmmmm how come there is no record?
"Breaking news, The power has gone out at ASR, I am here live now in front of the student lounge and if the phones lines are not up in the next 10 minutes I predict a major violation of communication of EEC code 3.07 Part 9 will occur. I will verify this myself, no need for paperwork or filing for public record purposes... this Amy Cross, signing off from Cummington, MA..... over to you Herb..... Thanks Amy, things are getting wild over there......................
There are records, but you'll have to go retrieve them. I'm not going to do your busywork...Ha,Ha,Ha...
The evidence is in the news article, laid out nice and simple. Don't blame me for linking to it. I didn't violate the law, ASR did. That's why they got cited, silly....Ha,Ha,Ha.....Calm down, take a deep breath, read the article and then take up your concerns with the author, the investigator or the OCCS......Get back to us when you get statements from them saying they were making it all up....
Ha,Ha,Ha.....Good night!
-
This is where we are now. It has been well established that ASR broke the law and was cited for it. We all agree about this
Time to move on to the next issue. This one's settled.
This is the most accurate information available. Until someone offers proof that the events in the article didn't happen or that the reporter was lying, it's what we'll go with.
I know it gets TheWho bent out of shape to be proven wrong on this but I never thought he'd go off the deep end editing out key parts of the regs to hide them because ASR is in violation. Ha,Ha,Ha...that's just too funny when he does things like that just to push an agenda.
But these facts won't go away. ASR has been cited in violation of at least two laws. I think we've established that beyond doubt and everyone is comfortable with it here.
It was an article writtem by Stepanie Kraft for the Valley Advocate. It's archived on cafety.org.
So this is where we're at until someone can show otherwise:
Ha,Ha,Ha... I'm not going to do your busy work. If you have documents that show otherwise, post them.
We have already established these facts and I think everyone is comfortable with where we're at in this debate:
[/u]"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."[/u]
Sorry, Who, but these are the facts. I guess you can take it up with OCCS and investigator Lieberman and try to change the records Ha,Ha,Ha...
I know you get mad mad about this, Who, but you can't change history and the state's records to suit your agenda...Ha,Ha,Ha. You'll have to take this up with the state if you don't like their ruling, not fornits! Do your own work, I'm not going to do it for you. Ha,Ha, Ha...
If someone was a convicted rapist, would you not believe rape was against the law unless someone posted the actual law that says it is? That's absurd.
The fact that ASR was cited by state officials for breaking the law is ipso facto proof that the law exists.
This is the most direct source we have stating the facts about the state's inspection of ASR resulting in at least two citations for violating the law.
I think we're all comfortable with the state's findings and the journalist's accurate reporting of it. We all agree.
So this is where we're at until we see some proof that the journalist was lying about the state's two citations.
I know certain people would like to say that the reporter was lying in the article, but they'll have to take it up with her or the state. We have established that these events took place and that the record is clear.
Let's move on... As soon as Who talks with the reporter and establishes that she was lying about the content of the article we will revisit. Time to move on to other items.
This has been fun, Ha,Ha,Ha...just kidding.[/quote]
-
So you really believe that some person crying at the front desk saying: “Please don’t write us up, I’ll lose my job if you do” would be enough to change the laws in Massachusetts?
I have no idea what the circumstances were that lead to the change. I'm just relaying what the licenser told me. ASR was the driving force behind the 30% rule. They did this to avoid regulation. This is true whether you like it or not. Ha ha ha, just kidding.
You also mentioned that this occurred when ASR” literally opened their doors” as you stated…..hmmmmmm. So lets see…….ASR started up, opened their doors and had the EEC (as it is called now) come over to visit, found some violations, ASR corrected them and now, a decade or 2 later, you are having heart burn with it.
Wow you're an idiot. ASR by no means "had the EEC come over to visit". One of the employees a Mr. Kent called them because he was disturbed by the blatent child abuse he saw. EEC showed up much to ASR's chagrin. Mr. Kent was of course fired for this infraction. As to ASR "correcting" the errors, which by the way is a nice term for "breaking the law" ASR did not then, nor have they now "corrected" anything. They just found a way to get away with it, all good things come to end though I guess. Or in this case, all law breaking child abusing programs come to an end.
If a violation occurred 10 or 20 years ago don’t you think they would have follow-up and verified if they made changes?
Not if they arent under the regulation of the EEC, which thanks to their lying to the state and the loop hole they weren't. As explained to me today by the licenser the only way they would be able to go back in for any reason was if someone called and made an allegation of abuse against the school.
And if they haven’t followed up why would turning over control to the state in the form of regulation to these people make our kids any safer?
Because idiot it would mean the kids could report any abuse anytime, due to the fact that they wouldnt have their communications censored. It would also mean the state could come in at any time for any reason and verify they were actually obeying the law. As ASR has proven they cannot be trusted to obey the law without someone watching over their shoulder at all times.
This is nuts! What newspaper did this come from …… this just doesn’t pass the sniff test
Well of course it doesn't pass yours. You've got your head shoved so far up your own ass all you can smell is your own bullshit.
The rest of us are a little more objective than you are.
-
State violations are public record......... Hmmmm how come there is no record?
Because they arent regulated by the state. Only those companies that actually obey the law and become properly licensed are going to be listed in the OCCS' database.
Same thing with HLA, nothing but their X-Ray machine has ever been listed on the ORS page because they lied to the state to avoid being regulated by the ORS. RC on the other hand was caught before HLA was and is listed.
ASR has been caught and will soon have all their violations posted for the whole world to see. In the meantime we'll see if we cant get ahold of that original report for you Who. No doubt you'll deny it up and down but at least everyone else will know the truth.
-
You also mentioned that this occurred when ASR” literally opened their doors” as you stated…..hmmmmmm. So lets see…….ASR started up, opened their doors and had the EEC (as it is called now) come over to visit, found some violations, ASR corrected them and now, a decade or 2 later, you are having heart burn with it. I still haven’t seen the report citing these violations or if they exist, but if they occurred at start up, why bother?
The investigation revealed that ASR was violating state regs, first and foremost, operating without a license. They were cited, but not sanctioned. Can't sanction a program that's not under your jurisdiction. At that point, they were still a private corp with all the rights that entails, hence the meetings with the attorneys. Just like HLA, oh wonder of wonders. HLA probably coached them on how to scam the state.
If a violation occurred 10 or 20 years ago don’t you think they would have follow-up and verified if they made changes?
Not in an unlicensed program. They are not required to make any changes unless/until they are under the state's jurisdiction.
And if they haven’t followed up why would turning over control to the state in the form of regulation to these people make our kids any safer?
That's a good point. And I can imagine a very similar scenario to what I described about HLA. The state needs to be well educated, ie- shown proof of the services ASR provides. And if the stars are lined up just so, and they have an ethical director on staff, ASR will most definitely be required to licensure.
This is nuts! What newspaper did this come from …… this just doesn’t pass the sniff test
You can find it in a google search. I put up another copy in the Aspen forum because it no longer turns up in searches here:
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 201#256201 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=256201#256201)
-
Finally the newspaper article.. we were waiting for. So 10 or 15 years ago (when they first opened) the school was cited for allegations made by an employee who was not happy. After further investigation the allegations were determined to be unfounded. If the investigation as a result of the citation found ASR to be in violation there would have been a public record.... but there is none.
Lets say I am not happy with my job as a cook at Harvard and get the authorities involved and create enough smoke I could get a citation written for raw meat being left out over night. But unless I can prove what I have alleged (that there is an ongoing problem) the charges get dropped and there is no public record….. Harvard shouldn’t suffer because of this man and the law sees that they don’t.
-
So it seems they passed the old "Abuse hotline" test 10-15 years ago.....?
-
Link to the article (http://http://cafety.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=279)
No who, in the article it says that ASR used it's licensing to avoid state oversight and that the matter resulted in legal fights that were unresolved at the time this article was published.
The citation struck at another bone of contention between the state and ASR. A few months ago OCCS found itself at odds with ASR over whether the school needs to be licensed in Massachusetts as a treatment center, something College Health Enterprises had not done. ASR officials seemed to be having it both ways by enforcing rules usually associated with treatment programs for people with emotional or behavioral disorders, but refusing to have the school licensed as a treatment center, which would give OCCS the right to oversee its operations.The disagreement is still unresolved, and has turned into a battle between lawyers for the state and the school.
-
Its good to know the folk in Mass care.
do you know is asr has any connection to desito another mass school that also got shot down.
mass is a progressive state and they actually care. Im so happy
-
Many of the violations in this citation still existed during the time "What it takes to pull me through" was wrote. And we have information from an ASR student who attended in 200(0-3?) that matches the violations noted in the news report.
-
Finally the newspaper article.. we were waiting for. So 10 or 15 years ago (when they first opened) the school was cited for allegations made by an employee who was not happy
He was unhappy about the kids being abused, yes that's correct.
After further investigation the allegations were determined to be unfounded.
Who are you even going to read the article? Obviously you haven't, because if you had you would have never made this blatently stupid comment.
The allegations were accurate by ASR staff members own addmission. Take a closer look.
Academy administrators told Lieberman it was true that students were denied sleep for 19 or 20 hours during the first Life
Step session, called "The Truth."
.The Office of Child Care Services' investigators found that the school had not been remiss in getting medical treatment
for the student with the broken collarbone, but it did substantiate mostof Kent's other concerns.
Pay close attention to that last part Who. "it did substantiate" translating to, they believed him, not the school.
OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail.
Clearly Who, youre mistaken. Pay closer attention next time. Ha ha ha, just kidding.
If the investigation as a result of the citation found ASR to be in violation there would have been a public record.... but there is none.
You continue to miss the fact that ASR is not regulated by the OCCS, not yet anyway. As such they would not be listed among those under their perview. Please see Deborah's comments regarding the similar situation at HLA if youre still confused.
But unless I can prove what I have alleged (that there is an ongoing problem) the charges get dropped and there is no public record….. Harvard shouldn’t suffer because of this man and the law sees that they don’t.
But as was proven the law did see it the man's way. He did prove it. Don't get angry because you can't rewrite history.
-
No who, in the article it says that ASR used it's licensing to avoid state oversight and that the matter resulted in legal fights that were unresolved at the time this article was published.
Strike "licensing" and insert "lawyers".
Could also correctly insert "their claim to be a traditional boarding school".
-
Except for some reason they keep advertising as a theraputic one. Why is that?
-
Link to the article (http://http://cafety.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=279)
No who, in the article it says that ASR used it's licensing to avoid state oversight and that the matter resulted in legal fights that were unresolved at the time this article was published.
The citation struck at another bone of contention between the state and ASR. A few months ago OCCS found itself at odds with ASR over whether the school needs to be licensed in Massachusetts as a treatment center, something College Health Enterprises had not done. ASR officials seemed to be having it both ways by enforcing rules usually associated with treatment programs for people with emotional or behavioral disorders, but refusing to have the school licensed as a treatment center, which would give OCCS the right to oversee its operations.The disagreement is still unresolved, and has turned into a battle between lawyers for the state and the school.
The article was written in the previous century, old news, nothing was found.......
-
Copied from ASR thread:
"okay this is why people here lose credibility. this article came out in 1999. none of the same staff work for ASR and none of the practices, such as LifeSteps, still exist. seems like people hold this up as the golden goose which should spell the end of ASR yet it holds no water considering the changes that have occured inthe last few years. you also keep bringing up old staff like Rudy Benz, who has been gone for 4 years. so if you have something recent to complain about show it here and maybe others will listen to you. the whole emotional growth model has been scrapped for a more clinical approach.
hey Deb find something written in the last 3-4 years!!!"
-
Copied from ASR thread:
"okay this is why people here lose credibility. this article came out in 1999. none of the same staff work for ASR and none of the practices, such as LifeSteps, still exist. seems like people hold this up as the golden goose which should spell the end of ASR yet it holds no water considering the changes that have occured inthe last few years. you also keep bringing up old staff like Rudy Benz, who has been gone for 4 years. so if you have something recent to complain about show it here and maybe others will listen to you. the whole emotional growth model has been scrapped for a more clinical approach.
hey Deb find something written in the last 3-4 years!!!"
AnonymousWho - so now you no longer dispute that ASR was in fact cited by the state for violating childrens' rights? Good.
So, this is wher we're at, after dragging TheWho along for a couple of days:
We are now in universal agreement that ASR was cited by the state for breaking laws governing the treatment of children. They were cited for degrading and humiliating treatment, physical punishment and restricing communications of juveniles - all clearly violations which they continue to perpetrate.
Ha,Ha,Ha... It took a while, but TheWho finally came around to the point. I knew you could do it, even if you had to do it anonymously...Ha,Ha,Ha...just kidding!
Let's move on. This issue has been settled and the most boisterous denier is now on board with everyone's conclusion that ASR violated kids rights and was given multiple citations by the state for it. I'm glad that's settled!
-
I agree, it is settled....... There is still no evidence any of these so called citations had any validity. If they did they would the results would become public record. If they were thrown out they were unfounded.
-
I agree, it is settled....... There is still no evidence any of these so called citations had any validity. If they did they would the results would become public record. If they were thrown out they were unfounded.
No re-read the article and take note of the licensing issue between ASR and OCCS(eec)
The citation struck at another bone of contention between the state and ASR. A few months ago OCCS found itself at odds with ASR over whether the school needs to be licensed in Massachusetts as a treatment center, something College Health Enterprises had not done. ASR officials seemed to be having it both ways by enforcing rules usually associated with treatment programs for people with emotional or behavioral disorders, but refusing to have the school licensed as a treatment center, which would give OCCS the right to oversee its operations.The disagreement is still unresolved, and has turned into a battle between lawyers for the state and the school.
-
I agree, it is settled....... There is still no evidence any of these so called citations had any validity. If they did they would the results would become public record. If they were thrown out they were unfounded.
No re-read the article and take note of the licensing issue between ASR and OCCS(eec)
The citation struck at another bone of contention between the state and ASR. A few months ago OCCS found itself at odds with ASR over whether the school needs to be licensed in Massachusetts as a treatment center, something College Health Enterprises had not done. ASR officials seemed to be having it both ways by enforcing rules usually associated with treatment programs for people with emotional or behavioral disorders, but refusing to have the school licensed as a treatment center, which would give OCCS the right to oversee its operations.The disagreement is still unresolved, and has turned into a battle between lawyers for the state and the school.
That was settled 7 years ago. They are not required to be overseen by OCCS.
-
No, they weren't required seven years ago thanks to the 30% law. If however they currently have a student population where 30% or higher is special needs then they are required to be overseen by the OCCS. Since that time the definition of special needs has become much broader.
-
This is the most accurate information available. Until someone offers proof that the events in the article didn't happen or that the reporter was lying, it's what we'll go with.
I know it gets TheWho bent out of shape to be proven wrong on this but I never thought he'd go off the deep end editing out key parts of the regs to hide them because ASR is in violation. Ha,Ha,Ha...that's just too funny when he does things like that just to push an agenda.
But these facts won't go away. ASR has been cited in violation of at least two laws. I think we've established that beyond doubt and everyone is comfortable with it here.
It was an article writtem by Stepanie Kraft for the Valley Advocate. It's archived on cafety.org.
So this is where we're at until someone can show otherwise:
Ha,Ha,Ha... I'm not going to do your busy work. If you have documents that show otherwise, post them.
We have already established these facts and I think everyone is comfortable with where we're at in this debate:
[/u]"OCCS also cited the school for monitoring students' telephone calls and mail. The agency said that the right to privacy incommunications, even for juveniles, can be restricted only by court order -- for example (editing note: this is exactly the argument TheWho used earlier in the thread and it's 100% illegal!), if a therapist believes that the teen's communication should be monitored, perhaps to support a young person through a crisis in relations with his orher family -- and then only temporarily."[/u]
Sorry, Who, but these are the facts. I guess you can take it up with OCCS and investigator Lieberman and try to change the records Ha,Ha,Ha...
I know you get mad mad about this, Who, but you can't change history and the state's records to suit your agenda...Ha,Ha,Ha. You'll have to take this up with the state if you don't like their ruling, not fornits! Do your own work, I'm not going to do it for you. Ha,Ha, Ha...
If someone was a convicted rapist, would you not believe rape was against the law unless someone posted the actual law that says it is? That's absurd.
The fact that ASR was cited by state officials for breaking the law is ipso facto proof that the law exists.
This is the most direct source we have stating the facts about the state's inspection of ASR resulting in at least two citations for violating the law.
I think we're all comfortable with the state's findings and the journalist's accurate reporting of it. We all agree.
So this is where we're at until we see some proof that the journalist was lying about the state's two citations.
I know certain people would like to say that the reporter was lying in the article, but they'll have to take it up with her or the state. We have established that these events took place and that the record is clear.
Let's move on... As soon as Who talks with the reporter and establishes that she was lying about the content of the article we will revisit. Time to move on to other items.
This has been fun, Ha,Ha,Ha...just kidding.[/quote]
I believe we have established that fact that ASR was cited for multiple violations. We're all in agreement on this. There were allegations by an employee which were substantiated through an investigation by Mr. Lieberman from OCCS, and the resultant citations for violating the law.
See, that wasn't so hard. Ha,Ha,Ha... ASR has a "criminal record" and seems by all accounts to be recidivating. If you don't agree with the state's findings, you'll have to take it up with the state, not a messageboard!
-
Who, dude, the horse is dead, stop beatin it.
The issue of licensing and 'special needs' was hashed to death in this thread:
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 666#248666 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=248666#248666)
From that thread:
A Group Care Program is a program or facility that provides care and custody for one or more children by anyone other than a relative by blood, marriage or adoption on a regular 24-hour a day, residential basis.
Group care program includes private residential schools that provide to children with special needs in which children with special needs constitute 30% or more of the school?s population.
Special Services are any services provided to children with special needs by a private residential school that are special education services similar to those referred to at 603 CMR 18.05(3)(a) and (b); or
I'd say that they do need to be licensed per the definition of special needs children.
-
No, they weren't required seven years ago thanks to the 30% law. If however they currently have a student population where 30% or higher is special needs then they are required to be overseen by the OCCS. Since that time the definition of special needs has become much broader.
RB, he's attempting to distract with the 30% issue. Read the regs carefully.
Group care program includes but is not limited to:
*private residential schools that provide special services to children with special needs in which children with special needs constitute 30% or more of the school?s population; and
*group residences or group homes.
-
Deb check your PM's.
-
Honzomon4 wrote:
I'd say that they do need to be licensed per the definition of special needs children.
I thought so at first read myself, but as you get into it a little I had to
disagree, Hanzo, and so does the state, here is what I am referring to:
They may provide special services, but the kids are not necessarily defined as “special needs” children as defined by the state. There is a distinct difference.
…..This may include, but not be limited to, a school age child with special needs as determined by an evaluation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3, and as defined by the Department of Education in 603 CMR 28.00.
So there is an evaluation that needs to be done to determine if the child qualifies for services or can be considered “Special needs”. They also leave the door open in case a parent feels their child deserves to be placed into the “special needs” program and receive services from the state but failed to qualify under the evaluation 71B, that is why they mention “Not limited to” because they do make exceptions on a case–by-case basis if the parents plea a case to the state.
-
So now youre claiming ASR provides services to kids who don't need it?
-
So there is an evaluation that needs to be done to determine if the child qualifies for services or can be considered “Special needs”. They also leave the door open in case a parent feels their child deserves to be placed into the “special needs” program and receive services from the state but failed to qualify under the evaluation 71B, that is why they mention “Not limited to” because they do make exceptions on a case–by-case basis if the parents plea a case to the state.
Inaccurate.
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 182#256182 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=256182#256182)
-
So now youre claiming ASR provides services to kids who don't need it?
No, not my claim, I cant affect what they do. This is all determined by the state. Here check out this link and you will see towards the bottom:
Private Residential Schools not serving children with special needs (http://http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs/RP%20Licensing%20Requirements.pdf)
After going thru this, one of the problems is using the term special needs. People can define this anyway they like from a “Academic underachieving to severe mental issues. But the state has developed a set of requirements that determines if you qualify for services under the different state agencies. They test the child to determine where he/she stand. If they fall within the guidelines they are considered “Special needs” children. ASR can define it anyway they like but it doesn’t mean the state would recognize their definition.
-
So now youre claiming ASR provides services to kids who don't need it?
No, not my claim, I cant affect what they do. This is all determined by the state. Here check out this link and you will see towards the bottom:
Private Residential Schools not serving children with special needs (http://http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs/RP%20Licensing%20Requirements.pdf)
After going thru this, one of the problems is using the term special needs. People can define this anyway they like from a “Academic underachieving to severe mental issues. But the state has developed a set of requirements that determines if you qualify for services under the different state agencies. They test the child to determine where he/she stand. If they fall within the guidelines they are considered “Special needs” children. ASR can define it anyway they like but it doesn’t mean the state would recognize their definition.
What is this "test" you speak of? Are you arguing that ASR is a Private Residential School not serving child with special needs? If so why do they provide special services? Why do they claim to be a theraputic boarding school?
-
No what I am saying is I can set up a school and say it is for “children of special needs”. Lets say we take only kids with adoption issues. Now the state has its own definition of “Special needs”. These kids receive services from the state, some within the school system, i.e. PT, OT, speech, ABA etc. In order to qualify for these services your child needs to be evaluated by the state thru…. “an evaluation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3, and as defined by the Department of Education in 603 CMR 28.00. If the child falls under these guide lines he/she is eligible for services and is defined as a special needs student. If your child does not qualify you can plea your case on a case by case basis because it is not limited to this definition. Simply being adopted may or may not meet this definition.
So now I have a school for children of special needs (as I call it) but my kids don’t qualify for services because they don’t meet the definition the state set up so I am defined as a “Private boarding school for children without special needs” by the state. A little confusing at first for me.
Hope this helps.
-
No, what you said was that the state tested kids to see if they were special needs. Show some evidence that this is true. Post a link.
Or maybe ASR doesn't allow the state tester to test the kids because he might talk dirty to them, like the abuse hotline operator? Ha,Ha, Ha.
-
No, what you said was that the state tested kids to see if they were special needs. Show some evidence that this is true. Post a link.
Or maybe ASR doesn't allow the state tester to test the kids because he might talk dirty to them, like the abuse hotline operator? Ha,Ha, Ha.
They do....the child or the childs parents need to request and schedule the test either thru "Early intervention" or if older than the age 3 thru the following evaluation:
an evaluation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3, and as defined by the Department of Education in 603 CMR 28.00. (read my previous post)
If your child has already been defined as "Special needs" in another state and/or has and I.E.P. I am sure they will consider it and may fall under the "....and not limited to" clause.
-
No what I am saying is I can set up a school and say it is for “children of special needs”. Lets say we take only kids with adoption issues. Now the state has its own definition of “Special needs”. These kids receive services from the state, some within the school system, i.e. PT, OT, speech, ABA etc. In order to qualify for these services your child needs to be evaluated by the state thru…. “an evaluation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3, and as defined by the Department of Education in 603 CMR 28.00. If the child falls under these guide lines he/she is eligible for services and is defined as a special needs student. If your child does not qualify you can plea your case on a case by case basis because it is not limited to this definition. Simply being adopted may or may not meet this definition.
So now I have a school for children of special needs (as I call it) but my kids don’t qualify for services because they don’t meet the definition the state set up so I am defined as a “Private boarding school for children without special needs” by the state. A little confusing at first for me.
Hope this helps.
You didn't answer any of my questions.
What is this "test" you speak of? Are you arguing that ASR is a Private Residential School not serving child with special needs? If so why do they provide special services? Why do they claim to be a theraputic boarding school?
You also appear to be trying to make the definition youre listing the only criteria needed to be classified as "special needs".
A Child with special needs is a child who, because of a disability consisting of a developmental delay or an emotional, communication, specific learning impairment or combination thereof, is or would be unable to progress effectively in a regular school program. This may include, but not be limited to a school age child with special needs as determined by an evaluation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3, and as defined by the Department of Education in 603 CMR 28.00.
So by that definition clearly a child who was dealing with a disability or a developmental delay brought on by an emotional issue would be considered "special needs".
Therapeutic boarding schools specialize in educating troubled teens struggling with behavior, emotional issues, or academics. Boarding schools that specialize in troubled teens offer these teens the opportunity to focus on school and receive individualized attention.
That would appear to meet the definition would it not?
-
That would appear to meet the definition would it not?
We can all sit here and speculate who falls under the definition of "Special Needs". But the state gets the final say. Not you or me or ASR.
-
You also appear to be trying to make the definition youre listing the only criteria needed to be classified as "special needs".
No I said if your child doesnt fall under the guide lines of the state and you want your son/daughter defined as "Special needs" you can challenge the results. That is why they add the clause "and not limited too" because there are always excepts to the testing. The testing is the first cut and covers the lions share of the definition.
-
That would appear to meet the definition would it not?
We can all sit here and speculate who falls under the definition of "Special Needs". But the state gets the final say. Not you or me or ASR.
Yes, just like the state had the final say when it cited ASR twice for violating the law.
Funny how you tried to have the final say on that one, huh?
-
We can all sit here and speculate who falls under the definition of "Special Needs". But the state gets the final say. Not you or me or ASR.
We don't need to speculate, they spell it out for us quite clearly.
A Child with special needs is a child who, because of a disability consisting of a developmental delay or an emotional, communication, specific learning impairment or combination thereof, is or would be unable to progress effectively in a regular school program. This may include, but not be limited to a school age child with special needs as determined by an evaluation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3, and as defined by the Department of Education in 603 CMR 28.00.
Would you agree that this definition of those kids suited to a TBS would meet that definition. I'm asking for your opinion not anything the state says.
Therapeutic boarding schools specialize in educating troubled teens struggling with behavior, emotional issues, or academics. Boarding schools that specialize in troubled teens offer these teens the opportunity to focus on school and receive individualized attention.
No I said if your child doesnt fall under the guide lines of the state and you want your son/daughter defined as "Special needs" you can challenge the results. That is why they add the clause "and not limited too" because there are always excepts to the testing. The testing is the first cut and covers the lions share of the definition.
Okay so we can then agree that the state lays out clear cut terms in addition to providing some sort of test for parents who feel their child didnt fall under the primary definition. So we can then also agree that ASR is providing services to kids who meet the primary definition. Correct?
-
That would appear to meet the definition would it not?
We can all sit here and speculate who falls under the definition of "Special Needs". But the state gets the final say. Not you or me or ASR.
Yes, they do.
Special Services are any services provided to children with special needs by a private residential school that are special education services similar to those referred to at 603 CMR 18.05(3)(a) and (b); or social, psychological or psychiatric services; or self-help skills or activities of daily living training.
A Child with special needs is a child who, because of a disability consisting of a developmental delay or an emotional, communication, specific learning impairment or combination thereof, is or would be unable to progress effectively in a regular school program. This may include, but not be limited to, a school age child with special needs as determined by an evaluation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3, and as defined by the Department of Education in 603 CMR 28.00.
Now we know that ASR claims to teach social/self-help skills and provides psych services and assessments. We also know that they advertise to treat a host of psych disorders from the DSM manual. They claim to specialize in kids with "emotional, communication, specific learning impairment or combination thereof".
What's so hard about understanding this. And NO, the state doesn't come in and test the kids in RTCs to see if they're special needs unless the kid is a resident of the state and it's been requested or required by their IEP.
There is some other reason ASR remains unlicensed and I believe the answer is in the documentation resulting from the negotiation with the attorneys from ASR and EEC. That documentation should be mined from the archives of EEC if we are to really know why EEC backed off. Perhaps ASR threatened to sue them, and without documented evidence, EEC backed off. Not uncommon. We need a parent(s) with recent dealings with ASR to provide documentation to EEC. Anyone reading willing to do that? PM me for details.
-
We've settled this and the state agreed(ed) with us. Just because ASR wants it "Both Ways" don't make it legal. They serve kids with special needs with special services. If they claim that this isn't so then they're running afoul of the law by making group therapy mandatory and using rule exemptions as defined in the regulations I posted.
Deborah, can someone just call EEC and ask for the details regarding ASR licensing(or lack thereof)?
-
That would appear to meet the definition would it not?
We can all sit here and speculate who falls under the definition of "Special Needs". But the state gets the final say. Not you or me or ASR.
Yes, they do.
Special Services are any services provided to children with special needs by a private residential school that are special education services similar to those referred to at 603 CMR 18.05(3)(a) and (b); or social, psychological or psychiatric services; or self-help skills or activities of daily living training.
A Child with special needs is a child who, because of a disability consisting of a developmental delay or an emotional, communication, specific learning impairment or combination thereof, is or would be unable to progress effectively in a regular school program. This may include, but not be limited to, a school age child with special needs as determined by an evaluation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3, and as defined by the Department of Education in 603 CMR 28.00.
Now we know that ASR claims to teach social/self-help skills and provided psych services and assessments. We also know that they advertise to treat a host of psych disorders from the DSM manual. They claim to specialize in kids with "emotional, communication, specific learning impairment or combination thereof".
What's so hard about understanding this. And NO, the state doesn't come in and test the kids in RTCs to see if they're special needs unless the kid is a resident of the state and it's been requested or required by their IEP.
There is some other reason ASR remains unlicensed and I believe the answer is in the documentation resulting from the negotiation with the attorneys from ASR and EEC. That documentation should be mined from the archives of EEC if we are to really know why EEC backed off. Perhaps ASR threatened to sue them, and without documented evidence, EEC backed off. Not uncommon. We need a parent(s) with recent dealings with ASR to provide documentation to EEC. Anyone reading willing to do that? PM me for details.
I think we agree ASR provides special services to kids. The sticking point is how the state defines "Special needs". If we had that piece then we could determine if they are providing special services to "Special needs" students.
-
We already know.
A Child with special needs is a child who, because of a disability consisting of a developmental delay or an emotional, communication, specific learning impairment or combination thereof, is or would be unable to progress effectively in a regular school program. This may include, but not be limited to, a school age child with special needs as determined by an evaluation conducted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3, and as defined by the Department of Education in 603 CMR 28.00.
Where is the confusion on this coming from?
-
The sticking point is how the state defines "Special needs". If we had that piece then we could determine if they are providing special services to "Special needs" students.
The sticking point is, what did ASRs attorneys say to the state to get them to back off. If that is public record, we should have it soon.
-
The sticking point is how the state defines "Special needs". If we had that piece then we could determine if they are providing special services to "Special needs" students.
The sticking point is, what did ASRs attorneys say to the state to get them to back off. If that is public record, we should have it soon.
Sounds like there is more than one sticking point. But I would be interested to see what they said too. What ever it was seemed to satisfy them for the past 7 years, I guess.
-
Or scare them off enough. You havent addressed hanzo's point.
Just because ASR wants it "Both Ways" don't make it legal. They serve kids with special needs with special services. If they claim that this isn't so then they're running afoul of the law by making group therapy mandatory and using rule exemptions as defined in the regulations I posted.
Nor have you answered my earlier questions.
-
Or scare them off enough. You havent addressed hanzo's point.
Just because ASR wants it "Both Ways" don't make it legal. They serve kids with special needs with special services. If they claim that this isn't so then they're running afoul of the law by making group therapy mandatory and using rule exemptions as defined in the regulations I posted.
Nor have you answered my earlier questions.
Does ASR call it "group therapy" or "emotional growth"/"personal growth"?