West Ridge Academy Missionaries Tutor With Love

[_Inconceivable]

Thanks Fionn

In conclusion, a good program includes excellent academics in which a teen can succeed, positive discipline methods within a structure of caring not punishing adults, and family counseling to maintain the positive changes that occurred during the program.

I think the key here is positive family counseling. Anyone that has been through counseling knows that the parent's change in behavior must come first.

The only thing I strongly disagree with are statements like positive discipline methods within a structure of caring not punishing adults.

A parent must occasionally punish because they love and care for their children. This writer (and some other more notable experts) advocate the belief that a caring parent cannot and should never punish (through negative reinforcement). This is swinging the pendulum of understanding far out of balance.

On the other hand, many (if not all) boot camp programs rely primarilly (and nearly exclusively) upon negative reinforcement to "stabilize" or reform a child's behavior.

Question: If the parent would not engage in these practices in their own home, why in the hell would they approve of these anywhere else?

This verse comes to mind:

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 4:3)

Why would God's church inspire men to institute a program that is essentially the plan of the fallen son?

The flaming sword excuse does not pass the stink test either.

[_Droopy]

The Mormon Gulag story is just a lot of exaggeration on GoodK's part. I believed some or all of it at first, but then when he would provide details of reports he made or lawyers representing him, I had my doubts and my doubts have now coalesced into mocking doubt.

This was exactly my initial response to GoodK's first posts on the subject, even though we did not, even at that time, get along, to say the least.

It now appears that he has no further cards to play (save lashing out in disparate anger against his detractors) At this point, if GoodK can ever provide a shred of evidence supporting his main contentions, then all well and good.

But it would seem that all is not, in point of fact, well with these claims.

[_Pokatator]

I'd like to know what Eric did that my sons didn't do in their juvenile years.

Or me, or about every other young red blooded teenager.

Somehow, I get the impression that the step "father" (not sure he deserves this title) knows nothing about parenting and just wanted to past "his" problem and "his" inadequacies off on another.

IMNSHO somehow, Eric, became an embarrassment to the step-egotist and had to be removed from the scene. What a pharisee.

[_Fionn]

The only thing I strongly disagree with are statements like positive discipline methods within a structure of caring not punishing adults.

A parent must occasionally punish because they love and care for their children. This writer (and some other more notable experts) advocate the belief that a caring parent cannot and should never punish (through negative reinforcement). This is swinging the pendulum of understanding far out of balance.

On the other hand, many (if not all) boot camp programs rely primarilly (and nearly exclusively) upon negative reinforcement to "stabilize" or reform a child's behavior.

I completely agree, Inconceivable. The article, I think, is suggesting "therapeutic boarding schools" as an alternative to boot camp type programs. I'm not so sure these alternate programs have all the benefits they claim to have and agree with your reservations listed above. So, to this type of boarding school, I'd say caveat emptor.

However, if you follow the footnotes, the problems with boot camp programs seem to be pretty well established.

I also agree with Truth Dancer: the idea of taking a kid with mild behavioral issues and institutionalizing them for an unknown period of time bothers me. These are not kids with legal issues. There is no one assessing whether these kids really need this type of institutionalized treatment. It's the parents (which is fine, obviously) and the sales staff from these boot camps making the decision. Doesn't seem very prudent to me.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Fionn,

Welcome to the board!! :-)

There is no one assessing whether these kids really need this type of institutionalized treatment.

Actually there is no need for an assessment. I can tell you right now there is never a situation where a child with "soft to moderate" behavioral issues would be best served raised in an institution for years on end.

I find the very idea completely at odds with everything we know concerning the welfare and healthy development of children.

:-)

~td~

[_marg]

This article by Maia Szalavitz is a good read on abusive behavior modification teen programs.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/117088.html

She ends it with:

...
Right now, children sent to private tough love programs have fewer rights than convicted prisoners. A parent can send a child to a private program where he can be held incommunicado until he turns 18, without any medical diagnosis or rationale for the treatment and without any oversight or means of appeal.

In both public and private programs, policies on the use of force are far less stringent than they are for adult prisoners or psychiatric patients. At the government-run boot camp where Anderson died, for example, restraint, punches, and kicks were routinely applied to teens to punish them for not completing exercise, for “whimpering,” or for “breathing heavily.” Administrators who reviewed 180 “use of force” reports found inappropriate actions in only eight cases, even though most people would think that beating someone for “breathing heavily” is not acceptable. In a prison or mental hospital, by contrast, force is officially permitted only if the prisoner or patient is an immediate threat to himself or others. Parents who engaged in such practices could be charged with child abuse.

And the parents who send their kids to these camps? For the most part, they are uninformed about the absence of evidence supporting tough love programs and often desperate to save their kids from drugs and delinquency. Until we figure out a better balance between the right of parents to place their kids in whatever programs they choose and the right of kids to be free from inappropriate punishment by agents of their parents or the state, the abuse will continue. The shame of it all is that we know hurting kids doesn’t help them.

[_Danna]

Just a wee gripe from me - these boot camp programs may call themselves 'behavior modification', but they have absolutely nothing to do with empirical behavior modification as practised by behavior analysts.

Behavior analysis includes the study of punishment, but (real) Applied Behaviour Analysts invariably do not use punishment, except as an absolute last resort to suppress continuous self harming or violent behaviour - in the only cases of applied punishment I have seen, the children involved were biting their tongues, gouging their faces and scalps and chewing their hands - causing severe damage to themselves. Punishment was used to suppress the self-harm behaviour long enough to allow other behavior to occur which is then reinforced. Punishment is only indicated if the dangerous behavior is occurring so frequently that there is no option for reinforcing any alternative behaviors. Punishment is considered when the only alternative is to use strong medication which sedates the child but does not allow them to learn how to live, play, and learn. Clearly the situation in boot camps is very far removed from the clinical situations where severely disturbed, and usually very low functioning children are undergoing treatment for extreme violent and/or self-harming behavior.

Punishment suppresses a behavior in a specific context - which includes the administrator of the punishment. Change the context and the behavior is likely to re-occur. Punishment does not, and cannot, teach anything related to the behavior it is punishing. So punishment is not even a consideration in any real behavior modification program for 'normal' children.

In addition, punishment carries so many risks, such as modelling violent behavior as a means of controlling others, and creating adverse reactions (acute stress reactions and long-term stress disorders) to specific aspects of the context of punishment (i.e. a person, adults in general, an aspect of the physical environment etc)

A further principle of behavior modification is also treatment within the natural environment in which the behavior occurs (unless the child must be removed for safety reasons of course). The environment itself, primarily the behavior of the significant adults, is addressed to increase positive behavior by the child.

Finally, negative reinforcement is not punishment. Reinforcement by definition increases behavior. Punishment by definition suppresses behavior. Negative reinforcement is the removal of something, the removal of which is desired by the child (who will change their behavior to achieve it). As an example, my son does not like wearing nappies (diapers). When he does a wee in the toilet in the mornings, he is allowed to run around in big-boy undies till he goes to pre-school. This is negative reinforcement - removing the nappies reinforces his toilet use. Putting nappies on him is obviously not administered as a punishment! Another example of negative reinforcement might be being allowed to walk with mum rather than sitting in the pushchair once he learns not to run away.

I know that proponents of these abusive programs claim they are practising behavior analytic behavior modification, but that is a nonsense. If any program makes such a claim, just ask if the program director is a board certified behavior analyst (BCBA), and whether functional assessments are carried out for each child under the supervision of a BCBA qualified person.

I don't mean to harp on, but I am a behavior analyst myself, and have been cringing at each reference to these abusive programs as 'behavior modification' - even though I know the problem originates with false claims by the programs concerned, not board contributors!

[_KimberlyAnn]

Danna, thank you for your post. I always value your input, even more so in this case.

Kimberly

[_Fionn]

Thank you, Danna. Very informative post.

[_msnobody]

If you missed marg's link, or didn't read it, here's DCP's post, the email he received from Eric's step-father:

Hi Dan:

I have followed this thread ("Why I am not a Mormon") and here are a few comments I'll make which you have my permission to post on that message board if you wish (though you certainly don't have to and I'm not asking you to do so for my sake):

1. What you did in alerting me to my son's post was in no way unethical. As one who teaches ethics at the college level I think I know something of the subject. There was simply no ethical breach involved here whatsoever and any and all posters who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

2. My son's angst over your informing me of his post is a simple matter of him being exposed for something he did that he should not have done. He knows this, and I know this and I am confident that deep down inside he is ashamed of himself for mocking the priesthood (as he should be.)

3. As you and I have enjoyed a warm friendship for over 20 years now, I am grateful to you for having alerted me to my son's public posting. You did the right thing, I would have done the same, and I think, though they won't admit it, most everyone on that message board who condemns you would have behaved in like manner if they had any common sense or conscience at all. They will deny this, but that is beside the point.

4. While I normally do not spend time in forums of this sort, I have found the experience of reading through the various posts to be both hilarious and depressing. You, Dan, are hilarious with most of the things you have posted and I have had many a laugh watching you run circles around a bunch of bitter, angry people who think they've vanquished you and yet often betray a deep misunderstanding of your wit or your point. It's also depressing to read what some would consider to be their own contributions to reasoned discourse.

5. As to my relationship with my son, let me say that while I was disappointed in what he wrote -- especially in the fact that he did so in a public forum -- it in no way did any significant damage to our relationship. He is quite young and inexperienced and I think if and when he matures a bit in the next ten to twenty years or so, he will see things quite differently than he does at this time. (One would hope so.) He's not a fundamentally bad person and he's a lot more cocky in print than he is in a face-to-face encounter. This forum is one way for him to vent and work out some of the bigger questions he's wrestling with. I have high hopes for him long-term.

6. Finally, the purpose of this thread, which he titled "Why I am not a Mormon" is a farce. By that I mean that his reasons are a smoke-screen. They are an excuse. I won't confess his sins in public, but at the risk of stating the obvious, let's just say that if he loved God more than the things of the world he would be a very strong Latter-day Saint. As it is, the "world" has his attention at this time. I hope he will, in time, realize the path he is on has only brought him much pain, much sorrow, and much deprivation. God is at the helm and God will not be mocked. Eventually every knee shall bow before Christ and every tongue will confess His Messiahship. And that includes my son and every self-professed atheist on this list. When he finally gets tired of sin, I think he will make the right decisions, repent, and return. And we will welcome him with open arms. And you and he will probably look back on this thread and have a good laugh together.

Your friend,

DCP posted this publicly from the dad and the dad gave his consent to post this publicly? If so, this is crappy on both your parts DCP & Dad.