As we tootle about our lives we are sometimes unaware of the full horror of the human experience and how barbarity often exists justs out of sight. For people who are adjudged as needing to receive ‘treatments’, barbarity is in plain sight all the time.
The Judge Rotenberg Centre (note the happy colours) describes itself as:
The Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC) is a special needs school in Canton, Massachusetts serving both higher-functioning students with conduct, behavior, emotional, and/or psychiatric problems and lower-functioning students with autistic-like behaviors
Wait for the animated gif to revolve a few times. Note the happy faces of the students. Note the lovely grounds.
The JRC achieves its results by administering an electric shock to its students when they are in need of corrective action. Students carry around backpacks to ensure they are close to the source of the corrective action. The device/process is called ‘GED’ – Graduated Electronic Decelerator.
Massachusetts Division of Public Licensure is investigating reports of burns to the skin of at least one student. A former worker claimed that JRC staff failed to move the electrodes each day as required to keep from burning the boy’s skin. Director Matthew Israel states that:
Our skin shock device does not cause burns when it is applied. Very, very occasionally, a device might cause a superficial mark on the skin, from which the skin recovers quickly.
A ‘superficial mark’. Right. I guess ‘superficial’ might be in the eye of the beholder Mr Israel. Or, in this case, the skin of a young man.
The JRC also has an interesting take on diet – from its ‘foods to avoid’ section:
1. Avoid all red meat, including beef, pork, and lamb. All are rich in fat, cholesterol, and other harmful constituents.
2. Avoid all poultry and fish. Poultry has about the same amount of cholesterol as red meat, while fish varies, depending on type. Some fish are higher in cholesterol than red meat, others lower.
3. Avoid all dairy products, including milk, yogurt and cheese. Low-fat dairy products are not recommended because of potential health hazards including allergies, childhood diabetes, arthritis and lactose intolerance.
4. Avoid all oil, including olive, safflower, peanut and corn oil. Oil is simply a liquid form of fat.
5. Avoid eggs. Eggs are abundant in fat and cholesterol.
6. Avoid nuts, seeds, avocados, olives and soybean products (including tofu, soy cheese, and soy milk). Soybean products are high in fat, unless they have been specially processed (low-fat varieties are also not recommended).
7. Avoid all dried fruit and fruit juices. (Eat the whole fruit instead).
8. Avoid all flour products, such as breads, bagels and pretzels. The less a food is processed the better it is for weight loss. Flour products are composed of fragments of grain, or relatively small particles, which increase absorption and slow weight loss.
And then from an ex-employee:
A 12-year-old autistic girl wasted away to a “bag of bones†under a harsh dietary regime imposed by the controversial Judge Rotenberg Center for troubled kids, a former employee charges.
The JRC has also made the news recently by lying about its staff.
The Boston Herald reported Wednesday that the Massachusetts Division of Public Licensure is investigating at least 10 JRC therapists for allegedly practicing psychology without a license. The allegations were initially made by New York lawyer Kenneth Mollins, who complained last week that 14 of the 17 clinicians listed on the residential school’s website are not licensed psychologists. After Mollins’ allegations became public, JRC removed the title of psychologist from the names of all of its therapists that do not have licenses. “We have acknowledged we were giving the incorrect title,” JRC attorney Michael Flammia told the Herald. A district court magistrate will decide next week whether criminal charges will be filed against the 10 therapists and possibly four others that are also under investigation.
These are just the things that have been discovered.
My fellow Brit, Mike Stanton blogged about the JRC back in April. Amongst the commenters was someone calling themselves ‘Jackie’. Jackie had the following to say:
The director of JRC encourages staff members to use electroshock to quitting smoking, makes staff members watch slaughter house movies as a condition of their advancement, and is starving some of the patients who can not thrive on his radical vegetarian diet.
and
The worst shock punishment is when staff straps a child to a board and tell her that she will be shocked randomly five times in the next hour. Here the ultimate punishment is not the shock but the hour long terror.
and
However, the worst punishment is when food is withheld from a child for bad behavior. Every child’s behavior deteriorates when food is withheld so JRC becomes directly responsible for the behavior for which the child is being punished.
Director Matthew Israel seems to be a fairly typical quack. When challenged to present evidence for his aversive-based regime he says:
Our mission is to function as a school, or service agency, and not as a research agency. Indeed, the funds we receive for our services are not supposed to be spent on research.
Which is a fairly standard altie method of avoiding the necessity for validating quackery. Israel goes on to cite the NIH ‘Treatment of Destructive Behaviors in Persons With Developmental Disabilities’ statement from 1987 as supporting his practices. However upon visiting the page in question one finds a large disclaimer in bold, red, emphasised, uppercase type:
THIS DOCUMENT IS NO LONGER VIEWED BY NIH AS GUIDANCE FOR CURRENT MEDICAL PRACTICE.
I can find next to nothing in Pubmed regarding aversive based treatments.
However, one of the most disturbing aspects of the JRC is the readiness with which it is embraced by its students parents. the JRC maintains a blog in which it posts messages of support from students parents. None of the students views are represented. A typical example is below:
_”Before placing my daughter Julissa at JRC, I suffered tremendously because of her behaviors. She did not obey my rules, she did not listed to me, and she used to go out without permission. When she returned home and I tried to talk to her, she used to get very angry and hit me. When she did something wrong and I tried to give her advice, it was for nothing because she did not listed. One time, she even took money from me without me knowing. She took my ATM card, and since she knew my pin number, she took out $700.00 dollars that I was saving for that month’s rent. At home, we hardly ever slept. My other daughter, my granddaughter, and I were very nervous because of Jusissa’s behaviors.”_
_”Julissa was admitted to the Metropolitan Hospital in two occasions. Also, she was admitted once at Holewood Hospital in Queens. Every time she left the hospitals and returned home, she exhibited the same behaviors.”_
_”Even though my daughter was admitted into two different hospitals and was placed into different treatments, and many prescribed medications, nothing really helped her. I give my testimony of faith that nothing has been better than the treatment or better said the discipline that JRC school has.”_
This sounds (to me) like a naughty girl. But a girl deserving of the sort of regime described above? Electro therapy because a child wouldn’t follow her mother’s rules? On what grounds are these good criteria for this regime?
When I first heard about this, I thought it was a joke. Unfortunately its not.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Jonathan: “As a fellow student once complained to me ‘why do emotionally impaired kids get a say, it is stupid, they are the ones in treatment, so they have no objectivity’ (gacks)……”
Can I boak too????
I’d argue that objectivity cannot really exist and only intersubjectivity can provide a useful platform to obscerve life. That sort of ‘objectivity’ craved by your fellow student there is less than objective, since it – by virtue of his/her being a human being and having a very different viewpoint on the treatment process – is coloured by those constructs which guided his/her thinking (and even non-thinking).
I hear that kind of thing from medical practitioners a lot in Finland and half the time I have to hold back from giving the idiots a serious row.
Oddly enough, a special ed teacher in my English class was talking to me about the AS issue, and she told me that her interest in being in the class was especially piqued by my wearing my AspergerCarlsberg t-shirt… she now can see where her Aspie pupils could get to, given the chance.
Jonathan: “not to mention a certain mother’s sophistic comments that autistic are only fit for treatment, not to make comments about treatment of autism.”
I noted, if we’re thinking the of the same person here, that person’s total lack of response to Amanda’s post, which is exactly what the JRC staff really should be reading, as a way of getting a handle on the intersubjectivity that is required if their facility is going to ever start treating the children sent there any better. The best view on this matter is , in my opinion, Kelly’s idea that – in order to know what is going on with the client… we should “… ask him… he may just be able to tell (us)”. I read Amanda’s writings and the writings of other fellow autistics and I get the feeling practically all of the time that Kelly’s little snippet of advice has been ignored by far too many professionals.
Usually at great cost to the client they should have asked.
Ah, life’s rich pageant, eh…..?!
Hi Jonathon-
Thanks for clearing that up!
What’s wrong with video games? I’m currently playing “The Longest Journey” Had to wait too long for “Paradise” the newest from Benoit Sokal…
One of my major concerns about this place (beyond the whole usage of shock and other strong adversives) is that the focus appears to be on addressing the behavioural effects, that is, implementing punishments to reactions.
If one truly wants to make a particular behaviour cease (especially one that is maladaptive to the organism of concern, be it a human or other animal), then the best way to do that is to address the CAUSE of the behaviour.
Many kinds of maladaptive behaviours are reactions to stress. Trying to extinguish or suppress the stress reaction does nothing to address the cause of the stress, and punishments only serve to add to the overall stress loads! This does nothing to introduce a positive change in long-term functioning, and often the stress reaction is simply changed to yet another kind of reaction. People who cannot express distress outwardly will turn it inwardly, with a variety of psychic and somatic reactions and resulting secondary problems.
Oft times it is difficult to understand why someone does what they do. Such actions do not seem “sensible” to us simply because we have not considered the correct criteria or adaptive explanation. Nothing of this sort happens without a reason. Behaviour that results in misbehaviour can be very useful for illuminating unexpected internal processes. Extreme reactions are signs of major problems in functioning. There is a very important reason why an animal chews on its leg to escape a trap, or why people likewise harm themselves.
Above all, one should never punish someone for having problems!
True help does not perpetuate imbalanced power paradigms and propagate stress. True help is empowering — it gives people the tools they need to help themselves.
There is nothing in an electric shock scheme that enables a person to address the causes of their stresses or to provide the positive substrate that allows a person to be able to creatively respond to future variations in stress. The wrong kinds of things are taught with punishments, and not just to those who are the recipients of such.
And there we go….
Andrea, my friend the ‘educational entomologist’, has just demonstrated how poor a psychologist Matthew Israel is. I don’t care if Israel trained under Skinner. My only guess is that Skinner is currently feeling himself to be a failure if there is life after dead and he is watching what one of his protegés is doing. I know I would be ashamed to have let someone through a training course only to have them do exactly what they should not be doing.
To be honest, I’d be happy to have Andrea take the place over. I know much about her and her interest in the applied psychology of special education, and the way she works with people. If she approached my daughter in an educational/therapeutic setting, I’d be totally comfortable. If Matthew Israel did, I’d be looking for a gun.
At this point, I cannot think of a reason why JRC should remain in action. Many times the state has tried to shut it down, and its only real friend was Judge Rottenbastard (so it seems). I’m ashamed to be part of the same specis as that man…. but I’m glad I’m a human being with some sense of ethics and a commitment to make sure that nobody with whom I work undergoes such dehumanising treatments as are practised at JRC.
I’m sorry if I haven’t responded to everyone and everything directly but this format is making it difficult to do so. Here’s a blanket statement to the things that people have been saying to me since I last posted.
At JRC they don’t use Functional Analysis because, as I have said many times before, the students that are attending JRC have already been through many other programs, many of which employ ABA techniques.
Are we clear on this? If a student has been through an average of FIVE previous placements and assuming that at least two of them have done FA’s and the programs to treat the behaviors DID NOT work, then it would be a waste of time to do yet another FA.
I am well aware that literature supports newer ideas and techniques. If these newer ideas and techniques were 100% successful in every case then we wouldn’t need places like JRC. The 2005 article by Hanley et al addresses the idea that even though all these new ideas like FA’s and antecedent control are very successful (and I have never said they aren’t BTW) punishment with FCT is more successful than FCT alone. The only reason that more programs don’t use this combo is because of the current societal attitudes regarding punishment.
JONATHAN: Yes, and it demonstrates experimental control to satisfaction. But that doesn’t answer as to whether we should use this technique.
Well most research papers that I’ve read that detail experiments don’t make suggestions about whether to use the techniques.
David, neither of us will change our minds. I’m certainly glad that you are not the one in control of the fate of JRC.
No one here has given me a solution to the problem that I posted earlier, that hasn’t already been tried. I’ll post it here again, with some minor changes.
So what would your solution be? Your child has been expelled from yet another school. He is too dangerous. He has placed yet another staff member in the hospital. His meds have been upped again for the fourth time and they are still not working. Staff have implemented behavior treatment programs based on the outcomes of the FA, but the dangerous behaviors have not decreased. What do you suggest?
Here, I’ll even give you some suggestions.
Nursing-home-patient-level meds with the accompanying drool and vacant stare.
Mechanical restraint, nearly 24 hours a day.
Here are some things that their previous programs did to students who wound up at JRC:
A cage. He was washed down by hose.
Removal of teeth to prevent biting.
Let’s make this clear, this was done to students at programs OTHER THAN JRC. JRC was the one who took the student out of the cage and gave him a bed in a house to sleep in, and a job.
JRC is the one who now has to puree all the food for the student with no front teeth, and has managed to stop the biting.
Yeah, that is just soooo barbaric.
I will be happy to address anything else that people have brought up. I have skimmed the comments on this blog and have tried to answer to all of them but I might’ve missed some.
Ann: “Removal of teeth to prevent biting.”
What? And you are happy about this? Your comment below on the barbarism is indicative of a ‘so-fucking-what?!’ attitude to the people sent to where-ever that happened.
“Let’s make this clear, this was done to students at programs OTHER THAN JRC. JRC was the one who took the student out of the cage and gave him a bed in a house to sleep in, and a job.”
That’s one. What about others? Many we do actually know about.
“JRC is the one who now has to puree all the food for the student with no front teeth, and has managed to stop the biting.”
No front teeth? Were they milk-teeth or permanents? Removal of permanents will end biting in teh same way that amputation of a hand prevents nose-picking or nail-biting!
“Yeah, that is just soooo barbaric.”
Piss off, Ann, if your intention is to try to nullify the voice of the client with sarcasm…. which is exactly what it seems to me to be. You have anything to say to Amanda, who was actually most likely to be addressing the issues experienced by the types of people you allegedly work with….? Or are you going to ignore her concerns because, as a person who has been on the receiving end of barbaric treatments, she has no objectivity and therefore no authentic voice?
I just want to know whether you are an idiot or a bigot.
You choose.
Ann: “Staff have implemented behavior treatment programs based on the outcomes of the FA, but the dangerous behaviors have not decreased.”
Chances are that they didn’t ask the right questions.
FBA is only useful if, as Lewin would have it, you take into account the entire system of issue at play.
Hi Ann,
“At JRC they don’t use Functional Analysis because, as I have said many times before, the students that are attending JRC have already been through many other programs, many of which employ ABA techniques.â€
“Are we clear on this? If a student has been through an average of FIVE previous placements and assuming that at least two of them have done FA’s and the programs to treat the behaviors DID NOT work, then it would be a waste of time to do yet another FA.â€
No we are not clear on this. The JRC staff are assuming that because a child has been through x amount of special education and/or mental health services, they have been in contact with contemporary, research backed positive reinforcement practices. This is absurd. And this absurdity represents a failure of logic and ultimately ethics, as the JRC staff may then employ aversive treatment when other options have failed.
“I am well aware that literature supports newer ideas and techniques. If these newer ideas and techniques were 100% successful in every case then we wouldn’t need places like JRC.â€
The above has an implicit, but unspoken premise. That is, that these more effective practices are 100% employed outside of JRC, and therefore, the consumers when they get to JRC, have for sure, been through them and failed at them.
“The 2005 article by Hanley et al addresses the idea that even though all these new ideas like FA’s and antecedent control are very successful (and I have never said they aren’t BTW) punishment with FCT is more successful than FCT alone. The only reason that more programs don’t use this combo is because of the current societal attitudes regarding punishment.â€
All true, however, two points. 1) Social validity is important and it is not going away. One of the authors of the seminal paper you cite, observed this in his article Wolf (1978). 2) Ethical reasons; the way people experience things are important, Skinner made this clear and so have others. This is less of a problem with your consenting consumers (although could still do with some serious questioning), but is a major problem for non consenting clients.
“Well most research papers that I’ve read that detail experiments don’t make suggestions about whether to use the techniques.â€
Yes, but my point was that we can not justify a treatment by effectiveness alone. Ethics plays a part here.
“No one here has given me a solution to the problem that I posted earlier, that hasn’t already been tried. I’ll post it here again, with some minor changes.â€
And none of us, knows enough about the case you mention to truly make an informed decision about what to do. You have not provided us with that.
“So what would your solution be? Your child has been expelled from yet another school. He is too dangerous. He has placed yet another staff member in the hospital. His meds have been upped again for the fourth time and they are still not working. Staff have implemented behavior treatment programs based on the outcomes of the FA, but the dangerous behaviors have not decreased. What do you suggest?
Here, I’ll even give you some suggestions.â€
Nursing-home-patient-level meds with the accompanying drool and vacant stare.
Mechanical restraint, nearly 24 hours a day.â€
I will take (d) None of the above. This is the time to work with some one who is more expert than the average behavior analyst. They may well see something you do not. Failing that, maybe it is time for him to leave treatment and to be so called “free range†in his living arrangement.
“Here are some things that their previous programs did to students who wound up at JRC:â€A cage. He was washed down by hose.
Removal of teeth to prevent biting.â€
Which shows rather nicely that even those outside of our field can have the most abysmal of ethics.
“Let’s make this clear, this was done to students at programs OTHER THAN JRC. JRC was the one who took the student out of the cage and gave him a bed in a house to sleep in, and a job.â€
Good, which is exactly what any decent humane program would have done in the first place.
“JRC is the one who now has to puree all the food for the student with no front teeth, and has managed to stop the biting.â€
See the above.
“Yeah, that is just soooo barbaric.â€
No, it is not barbaric, but it certainly reflects the values of the JRC staff.
Thank you Jonathan…
As I predicted…. my input, as an *autistic* psychologist, was entirely devalued in Ann’s mind…
Shows more about her and her ‘ethics’ than it does about me and my *expertise* …. go on, Ann…. if you think you’re good enough!
*Ann*: “At JRC they don’t use Functional Analysis because, as I have said many times before, the students that are attending JRC have already been through many other programs, many of which employ ABA techniques. … Are we clear on this? If a student has been through an average of FIVE previous placements and assuming that at least two of them have done FA’s and the programs to treat the behaviors DID NOT work, then it would be a waste of time to do yet another FA.â€
*Jonathan*: “No we are not clear on this. The JRC staff are assuming that because a child has been through x amount of special education and/or mental health services, they have been in contact with contemporary, research backed positive reinforcement practices. This is absurd. And this absurdity represents a failure of logic and ultimately ethics, as the JRC staff may then employ aversive treatment when other options have failed.”
*Me*: Wouldn’t this amount to pure laziness, if this is what is being assumed? I’d expect better from people who claim (via Matthew Israel) a lineage going back to Skinner… who himself was not this lazy in his work!
That’s horrendous. Thanks for posting about this place. Let’s get it closed down.
Ann, if previous FBAs have not provided solutions that helped the student, that still does NOT mean that the aversive treatments at JRC are the correct means! It simply means that the cause for the problems has not been properly and fully identified.
If someone’s medication has been increased for the fourth time and is still not working, then either it is the wrong sort of medication, or likely the problem is simply not the sort that can be helped by medication. In fact, a lot of poor behaviours can result from side effects of medication, or from underlying physical problems that are not treatable by psychoactive drugs. Indeed, not everything is a medical problem.
And I still assert that aversive treatment will not address and resolve the *causes* of diverse problems. It only seeks to remediate the effects of the problems. Sometimes those effects are more “serious” to others than the person involved (and no, I’m not referring to self-harming activities in this instance).
andrea
It is discouraging to read most of the entries on this Blog, internet mythology and misinformation pass as accurate information. When misinformation alone is not enough to prove the author’s point, personal attacks are added. I should not be surprised as this has become the norm on most Blogs and on the internet as a whole.
I am encouraged to see that at least a few are willing to engage Ann in dialog. Her view first appears as a sharp contrast to many here. Ultimately though I believe we that either have autism, have a loved one that has autism, or work in the field share the common goal of helping these individuals. It is easy to portray Dr. Israel as a “Quack”. To portray the parents of these students as “idiots” who are in need of “parent training”. To portray the JRC staff as “half-human” or “barbaric”. To portray Americans as “conformists”. And finally to portray Ann as a “bigot and a racist”. I suppose it is much easier to paint a black hat on the other guy and a white hat on ourselves and smugly point fingers than it is to engage in real dialog. It is easy and ultimately a disservice to the very individuals that we are purporting to serve. It serves only to polarize each camp.
Factoid- “And then from an ex-employee:
A 12-year-old autistic girl wasted away to a “bag of bones†under a harsh dietary regime imposed by the controversial Judge Rotenberg Center for troubled kids, a former employee charges”
Omitted Information- “I’ve been there every six weeks, I know my daughter can go for days, she doesn’t want to eat anything, but you can’t make a child eat. They offer her extra food every hour.†she said.
“Shear now weighs 70 pounds, four pounds more than she did when she was admitted last year, and that students’ weights are reviewed weekly..”
* The student was underweight to begin with and has gained weight while at the center, she is offered food every hour to help her gain weight and not put on a restrictive diet to help her lose weight. This information was also in the article.
Factoid- “the JRC maintains a blog in which it posts messages of support from students parents. A typical example is below:
“Before placing my daughter Julissa at JRC, I suffered tremendously because of her behaviors. She did not obey my rules…” This sounds (to me) like a naughty girl. But a girl deserving of the sort of regime described above? Electro therapy because a child wouldn’t follow her mother’s rules? On what grounds are these good criteria for this regime?”
* This letter is actually atypical of many on the Blog. Most of the letters list more extreme self-injurious and aggressive behaviors. Also, it says nowhere in the letter that this student is receiving treatment with the GED. The JRC utilizes positive only programming with approximately 50% of its student population and many of the letters from parents with students on the GED Treatment list that in the letters. Most likely this student is on the positive only programming. If one takes one of the milder cases listed in the letters (as this one is) and makes it appear as if the most restrictive procedures are being utilized all that much easier to paint the black hat on the other guys.
Factoid- “the JRC maintains a blog… None of the students views are represented”.
Omitted Information- “JRC Parents/Friends Blog A public blog by families and friends of the Judge Rotenberg Center”
* The Blog was actually the idea of a parent who wanted to express the views of the parents. It does not state that student’s views are represented in this Blog. In the March 2006 archive however, there is a letter from a former student. The JRC does offer students views on their website. Click on JRC link http://www.judgerc.org/ and then go to “comments” in top menu or click on “Hear what students and parents have to say about the GED”.
Factoid- “Director Matthew Israel seems to be a fairly typical quack. When challenged to present evidence for his aversive-based regime he says:
Our mission is to function as a school, or service agency, and not as a research agency. Indeed, the funds we receive for our services are not supposed to be spent on research”.
Omitted Information- “The use of skin shock as a decelerative procedure for inappropriate behaviors is one of the most widely published behavior modification techniques in the psychological literature. Our own bibliography for example contains 111 separate papers on the topic, almost all of which are published in peer reviewed journals. The behavioral skin shock device that JRC uses (called the Graduated Electronic Decelerator, or GED) is simply a another device that administers a 2-second shock to the surface of the skin. It was designed to be an improvement on the SIBIS device, which has numerous publications in the professional peer-reviewed literature. Dr. Israel has written a paper that explains its advantages over the SIBIS device.
JRC’s primary mission is not the conduct and publication of peer-reviewed research, but the application to education and treatment of basic principles and technological strategies that are already well founded in the professional literature. Indeed, for JRC to spend its funds on doing and publishing research would be a disallowed expense under the Massachusetts rules for schools such as JRC”.
*I’m not sure where the quote from the factoid came from, but the JRC site lists two paragraphs of information before making the comment about JRC’s primary mission.
Factoid- “from mike stanton: I have just blogged The Judge Rotenberg Center. Does anyone have any info on NYC’s plans to reintroduce aversives? At present the methods used by JRC are illegal in New York so they spend a fortune sending kids across the state line to be abused :-(“.
Omitted Information- “The laws of the state of New York do not prohibit the use of aversive treatment. There is no statute or regulation in New York which prohibits aversive treatment when approved by a Court. Thus, school districts in New York do not violate any laws when they send students to JRC and the student receives supplemental aversives”.
*The myth that these procedures are illegal in New York continues to be perpetuated. New York sends students over the state line because they do not have the facilities in state to treat the most extreme cases.
Andrea: “And I still assert that aversive treatment will not address and resolve the causes of diverse problems. It only seeks to remediate the effects of the problems.”
I agree entirely.
Anyone noticed how much people are prepared to do to support the use of aversives, Andrea? Chucking in red herrings…. Not like Alexius has actually been reading this thread properly… who was portraying “Americans as conformists”?
Alexius, you try to tell people here to read things and then commit an error in stating that “It is easy … (t)o portray Americans as ‘conformists'”. Who was portraying Americans as conformists?
David, I was referring to earlier comments about “JRC exists only because of the culture of compliance and conformity that is paramount in the United States.” Let us say for the sake of continuing dialog that no one portrayed “Americans as conformists”. By making such a generalization, I perhaps went too far and over generalized the comment that was made. The generalization “conformist” was merely meant to illustrate the pattern of name calling when we disagree with someone.
I’ll admit to my error, I may have over generalized the comments that were made about Americans. Most of my comments with reference to name calling stand. One exception was that the comment directed to Ann painted her as and idiot or a bigot. “I just want to know whether you are an idiot or a bigot.” Putting in the word “racist” was my typo and I only noticed it when it was too late to edit the comment.
What I think is more useful to engage in real dialog. There seems to be movement toward that. I am especially encouraged by Andrea and Jonathan’s recent posts. Let us move away from name calling and perpetuating misinformation. In the long run I think it hurts the cause.
OK, Alexius. Let’s move on.
My issue with Ann is one which a lot of us have with a lot of people who do what Ann does: attempts to downplay the opinions (however well-founded) of people on this blog.
A number of people have come to this blog with that express purpose…
If Ann were to actually listen to concerns raised by people here, I’d feel better about her myself; as it is… she’s right, I’ll always be wrong, and that’s what I get from her posts.
And that is, if it is based upon the idea that an autistic person can have no opinion of value (regardless of his/her professional training or other capacity to reason), quite simply bigotry. In the common parlance, an idiot may be described as one who will not listen to others’ views. I wanted to know which she was since that was the pair of things her behaviour suggests. I don’t see her wishing to address Amanda’s points, for example. Amanda is one of the foremost writers in the autistic camp on issues of what it is like to be a client of places like JRC. The overall impression is that Ann isn’t too at all bothered by the concerns of others here… and even Jonathan (an ABA specialised psychologist) has had to comment on his distaste over things that she has said.
Also…. Ann never addressed this point of Andrea’s: “And I still assert that aversive treatment will not address and resolve the *causes* of diverse problems. It only seeks to remediate the effects of the problems.”
Andrea’s point is absolutely valid, and should be addressed. Ann has quite simply ignored it the first time round!
It is helpful if people discuss IDEAS, FACTS and VIEWPOINTS rather than the other people present. This approach produces a more useful discussion.
andrea
Punishment, as a system for controlling behaviour, runs on a variety of hidden assumptions.
Punishment seeks to maintain an inequal power relationship. This means between the employer and the employees as well as between the employees and the clients. Systems with entrenched punishment policies often run on that paradigm beyond the clients – the staff are also kept in fear of punishment against themselves, for fear of being cited, demoted, fired or blacklisted from future employment. Such schemes also seek to prevent staff from assaying different approaches, even if they might be more rational, more positive, or even more effective.
Punishment schemes seek to maintain the status quo; the good employee is thus compliant, and works to be helpful to their employers by passing on the punishment and turning in peers who exhibit “noncompliance†or “disobedience†by complaining or trying to change the system.
Compliance and obedience in the clients is how the staff are themselves judged, so the staff spend great amounts of their energies trying to ensure that the clients “behaveâ€. Employees that are concerned about their own competencies will feel threatened by clients or other employees who are not compliant.
Punishment assumes that the recipient “deserves†what they receive. It implies that a person has problems because of some moral failing. It implies that the person administering the punishment has a moral requirement to do so. This hearkens back to even before biblical times, when all kinds of pathology were considered to be divine punishment for sin; people are naturally evil, and must be controlled, their choices constrained, and their worlds and imaginations bounded. “Those kinds†deserve what they get. But people should never be punished for having problems.
Punishment can stop certain behavioral reactions, but it’s piss-poor for promoting more functional responses. As I’ve said before, it does not usually address the causes of the behaviours.
Getting people out of this trap requires creating opportunities for personal growth that is inner-directed. To do this one needs to provide choices as well as rational and natural consequences (consequences meaning both positive and negative ones, and realistic limits).
But given the “choice†of “be compliant or be shocked†is not an appropriate scenario. Norman Kunc explained it very well when he said, “One option = tyranny, two options = a dilemma, three or more options = a real choice.†The shock situation barely even ranks as a dilemma, because one has to decide if they will submit to tyranny and be a “good little victim†to avoid the horrible consequences, or to maintain their self-determination and submit to being inflicted with repeated pain. Most people will not endure pain for long, thus submitting to the less-evil situation, tyranny.
What does that teach but learned helplessness? How can suppressing the true self enable a person to find a more adaptive and adaptable means of coping with the true causes of their original problems?
Sublimating stress responses to unresolved problems won’t truly help the person once they’ve left – the problems are still there, even if the responses are more “socially acceptableâ€. What happens to a person when they realize that the oppression has ceased? Do they accept that they are inherently evil, sinful people and internalize the perceived need for an inner dictator (thought police) to live in stressed fear (perhaps depression), ever the shameful victim who relies on others to monitor their own behavior, then compliantly and guiltily thanking them for the punishments they deserve?
The whole system relies upon teaching people that they are bad and need the punishments in order to be good, and must be penitent. This is not help. This is not healing. No one is empowered to improve their own life and broaden their abilities. The original problems do not get resolved, thus opportunities for learning better ways of living, of creating a more mature, balanced, and joy-seeking life are not created. The clients are not getting their true needs met.
If I have a plant that is not growing well, I make sure it has the right amounts of light, water, nutrients, and freedom from undue competition and pests. I give the plant the resources it needs to help itself, and room to grow. I don’t punish the plant for having problems!
andrea
David: “Your comment below on the barbarism is indicative of a ‘so-fucking-what?!’ attitude to the people sent to where-ever that happened.â€
I guess I shouldn’t use sarcasm at all. I won’t use it anymore. It seems to get completely misunderstood. I apologize.
Here is what I said: JRC is the one who now has to puree all the food for the student with no front teeth, and has managed to stop the biting. Yeah, that is just soooo barbaric.
Here is what I meant: How can anyone call a program barbaric that manages to stop someone from biting themselves?
David: Removal of permanents will end biting in teh same way that amputation of a hand prevents nose-picking or nail-biting!
I think we agree on this. One remedy that my current school uses to prevent biting is to wear gloves. Doesn’t do a thing. They’re not even thick gloves.
David: “You have anything to say to Amanda, who was actually most likely to be addressing the issues experienced by the types of people you allegedly work with….? “
Honestly, no. I read what she wrote. She seems like a very high functioning person. JRC’s program is designed for people who have extreme behavior disorders. I don’t know of her, or her situation. I don’t like to make judgments about which I don’t know.
Jonathan: “The above has an implicit, but unspoken premise. That is, that these more effective practices are 100% employed outside of JRC, and therefore, the consumers when they get to JRC, have for sure, been through them and failed at them.â€
So then, why is it that other schools refuse to take students that eventually end up at JRC? JRC knows the history of its’ students. They know from where their students come. They know what kind of techniques have been used in the past.
Jonathan: Yes, but my point was that we can not justify a treatment by effectiveness alone. Ethics plays a part here.
Yes. Massachusetts courts have decided that in many of JRC’s cases that this treatment is ethical.
Jonanthan: And none of us, knows enough about the case you mention to truly make an informed decision about what to do. You have not provided us with that.
There’s the rub.
Okay, that’s fair enough to say that but remember one thing and I’m not necessarily aiming this at Jonathan;
It’s interesting how so many on here can make judgments about the staff of JRC and the parents of JRC students without knowing fact one about what’s really going on in their lives and the lives of their children. Then when presented with the same situation that the parents are in, you realize you need more information.
Jonathan: Failing that, maybe it is time for him to leave treatment and to be so called “free range†in his living arrangement.
I’m not familiar with “free range” but in my mind it conjures up a scary image…
…When I worked at JRC, there was a student there who was in restraint during all the waking hours of the day. He needed to be escorted with two staff whenever he was out of restraints. One time he escaped the grasp of his two staff. He immediately bolted. Fortunately, he did not hurt anyone. He needed to be in restraints because of his tendency to grab others and bite them, with no antecedents. In other words, he could be talking happily and then suddenly he would just reach out ,grab you and try to bite. If this person was free range, assuming that I understand the term correctly, he would have to be alone in a padded room.
However, thank you for presenting a solution.
BTW, In my posts on here, I have not been talking about one student. I have been talking about many.
Jonathan: Good, which is exactly what any decent humane program would have done in the first place.
You do realize you’re using the words “decent humane program†to describe JRC don’t you?
Alexius: It is easy to portray Dr. Israel as a “Quackâ€. To portray the parents of these students as “idiots†who are in need of “parent trainingâ€. To portray the JRC staff as “half-human†or “barbaricâ€. To portray Americans as “conformistsâ€. And finally to portray Ann as a “bigot and a racistâ€. I suppose it is much easier to paint a black hat on the other guy and a white hat on ourselves and smugly point fingers than it is to engage in real dialog.
THANK YOU and ditto.
Alexius: The Blog was actually the idea of a parent who wanted to express the views of the parents. It does not state that student’s views are represented in this Blog. In the March 2006 archive however, there is a letter from a former student.
Yeah, and if I remember correctly, the student said that he had regressed a bit and had to go to jail. I’m surprised the people in here didn’t post that one.
So yeah, I’m sure that graduates of JRC regress a bit. I myself used to be much more disciplined in my own life when I worked there and now I have also regressed. There is nothing wrong with wanting people to live up to their potential.
David: And that is, if it is based upon the idea that an autistic person can have no opinion of value
David, I didn’t even know that you were an autistic person when I first started responding to you and when you mentioned it, it really didn’t affect how I viewed you or what you said. The way I see it is, you are a person who has very strong feelings against JRC. Usually I have no problem with that. People with strong feelings against electric shock are very prevalent. My issue with your comments is that they are based on misinformation. You don’t have experience with JRC staff or students. (do you?) If indeed that is true then you should be keeping more of an open mind. I think that for some reason you really want to believe that JRC is this evil place with torture chambers. That’s just not true.
I really don’t see how I’ve been ignoring or devaluing anyone’s opinions on here. Just because I disagree with them, doesn’t mean I don’t respect them. However, if I think that those opinions are based on erroneous information, I am going to try to correct that.
Andrea: And I still assert that aversive treatment will not address and resolve the causes of diverse problems. It only seeks to remediate the effects of the problems
I agree with that. JRC uses a structural analysis. Why? Because, as I’ve said, FA’s were used by other schools and failed.
David: Ann has quite simply ignored it the first time round!
No. Please refer to an earlier post where I said the following: “I will be happy to address anything else that people have brought up. I have skimmed the comments on this blog and have tried to answer to all of them but I might’ve missed some.”
Give me a break 🙂 This blog is looooong. If I responded to everything, and then everyone else responded to every single thing, we might just run out of bandwidth.
Andrea: Punishment can stop certain behavioral reactions, but it’s piss-poor for promoting more functional responses. As I’ve said before, it does not usually address the causes of the behaviours.
I agree. That’s why you have to supplement it with positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement doesn’t really get to the cause of the behaviors either.
I just don’t agree with antecedent control. It’s like enabling behaviors, at least in my experience with it, it is. Putting a glove on a hand doesn’t stop biting. JRC’s program makes it so that the consequence overrides the desire to do the dangerous behavior.
JRC also uses both punishment and a positive approach with its staff. They have a raffle of $100. Can’t remember if it’s weekly or biweekly or monthly, anyway…Any staff who receives a PC ( basically a positive write-up) is entered in the raffle. PC’s are given out twice as often as PIO’s (punishment). I can now see the difference this makes. The schools where I’ve worked that don’t reprimand staff have lazy staff. They don’t do what they’re supposed to do and that leads to horrible things.
JRC also has a staff discussion board. If you make a suggestion on how to improve something and they pick yours as the best suggestion for that week, you win $100. I remember how there were almost too many suggestions. Things like, “We should label all the printers in the building, it would make it easier to find the stuff you printâ€. It was great!
It’s easy to move up there too. I was promoted two times within the first year I worked there. They actually reward hard work, instead of “connectionsâ€.
Hi Ann,
“So then, why is it that other schools refuse to take students that eventually end up at JRC? JRC knows the history of its’ students. They know from where their students come. They know what kind of techniques have been used in the past.â€
I don’t know, there could be a host of reasons. However, one can not assume, that because “Bobby†would not be accepted by any other school = failure of contemporary positive reinforcement practices. Also, to not accept a student it is highly illegal according to Public Law 94-142, I.D.E.A. How do the JRC staff know what techniques have been used in the past?
“Yes. Massachusetts courts have decided that in many of JRC’s cases that this treatment is ethical.â€
I understand that, but this does not prove that it is ethical, merely that the MA court finds it to be so.
“There’s the rub.
Okay, that’s fair enough to say that but remember one thing and I’m not necessarily aiming this at Jonathan;
It’s interesting how so many on here can make judgments about the staff of JRC and the parents of JRC students without knowing fact one about what’s really going on in their lives and the lives of their children. Then when presented with the same situation that the parents are in, you realize you need more information.â€
Understood, but you have used the Tu quoque fallacy. Also, even though you did not necessarily aim this at me, I want to emphasize that I do not judge the level of “goodness†of the JRC staff/parents, but offer criticism based upon what the JRC staff/parents have disclosed. If there are errors here, they can and should be corrected.
To break off into a semi-related tangent; one of the things that bothers me about our field of Applied Behavior Analysis (and it is not unique to us) is that we often claim consumer protection as an excuse to obscure our methodologies which nearly assures that we will be beyond reproach (folks can not criticize what they are not aware of). I dislike this practice heartily.
“I’m not familiar with “free range†but in my mind it conjures up a scary image…
…When I worked at JRC, there was a student there who was in restraint during all the waking hours of the day. He needed to be escorted with two staff whenever he was out of restraints. One time he escaped the grasp of his two staff. He immediately bolted. Fortunately, he did not hurt anyone. He needed to be in restraints because of his tendency to grab others and bite them, with no antecedents. In other words, he could be talking happily and then suddenly he would just reach out ,grab you and try to bite. If this person was free range, assuming that I understand the term correctly, he would have to be alone in a padded room.
However, thank you for presenting a solution.
BTW, In my posts on here, I have not been talking about one student. I have been talking about many.â€
And yet the JRC staff does use a controlled situations to determine what those antecedents might be. Free range, means a person can move about their living space in the absence of treatment.
“You do realize you’re using the words “decent humane program†to describe JRC don’t you?â€
Actually, I compared JRC to a decent and humane program in this case, rather than calling it such. However, my compliant with JRC, is not over whether it is decent or humane, but over its use of aversives, which I think is ethically unjustified.
“Yeah, and if I remember correctly, the student said that he had regressed a bit and had to go to jail. I’m surprised the people in here didn’t post that one.
So yeah, I’m sure that graduates of JRC regress a bit. I myself used to be much more disciplined in my own life when I worked there and now I have also regressed. There is nothing wrong with wanting people to live up to their potential.â€
No, there is nothing wrong with wanting people to live up to their potential. That is both noble and worthy. However, the matters change somewhat, when one decides what things constitute the “potential†for others and are prepared to arrange contingencies to enforce that. We are into an ethical problem then and one which appeal to the decision of a given authority e.g. (MA State court) does not adequately answer.
Ann: “How can anyone call a program barbaric that manages to stop someone from biting themselves?
Okay. I’ll applaud your stopping the use of sarcasm, and thank you for so doing. I still have a problem with the removal of teeth to prevent biting.
I stated this: “Removal of permanents will end biting in the same way that amputation of a hand prevents nose-picking or nail-biting!”
Ann: “I think we agree on this. One remedy that my current school uses to prevent biting is to wear gloves. Doesn’t do a thing. They’re not even thick gloves.”
Sounds to me as if they still don’t know why he bites. And without knowing that, they will always be at a loss for a more humane way to stop the biting.
Andrea said: And I still assert that aversive treatment will not address and resolve the causes of diverse problems. It only seeks to remediate the effects of the problems
Ann: “I agree with that. JRC uses a structural analysis. Why? Because, as I’ve said, FA’s were used by other schools and failed.”
Is this a structural analysis in the same was as we have structural analyses in qualitative psychology? Would help me to know what your terminology means in this instance.
Ann: “Honestly, no. I read what she wrote. She seems like a very high functioning person. JRC’s program is designed for people who have extreme behavior disorders. I don’t know of her, or her situation. I don’t like to make judgments about which I don’t know.”
I really do think that you’d get a good insight into the objections of a lot of us here by reading her writings. She has an issue with the idea of levels of functioning, and if you check her out at http://www.autistics.org you’ll see why. I’d urge you to take very seriously her viewpoint… she has been through similar things to what has been described in many cases at the JRC. Many others have too, and I’m sure her and her colleagues at autistics.org will have links to sites.
For everyone on here who is talking about doing an FA, and finding out the cause of the behaviors instead of just treating the actual behaviors, why on earth are you so quick to simply eliminate what you see as the problem? (JRC)
JRC accepts students from other schools and placements who have expelled them. Do we agree on this? While it’s probably true that not every student is there because of being expelled from a previous placement, most are. Some of these previous placements are public schools, some are special education schools, some are psychiatric hospitals.
All along I have argued that other schools have cases of abuse and neglect, at the very least, the other two schools besides JRC, where I have worked. I’ve stated that it perplexes me as to why JRC is so under the microscope while these other schools receive no media attention.
A lot of the people in this blog have argued that all JRC needs to do is run FA’s and get to the cause of the behavior and they wouldn’t need to use skin-shock. So if everyone in here is for that kind of treatment when it comes to students, why not do it on schools?
Why are these other schools failing their students? Are they too quick to get rid of problem students? Why is it that they have to expel them? How could it possibly get to the point where the only viable option is electric shock? Is it the staff? Is it the environment? Is it the medications? I would like to know the answers to these questions. I work at a school now that uses ABA. I see how they do things.
I told my supervisor about a problem behavior that wasn’t being measured. They said they were going to do an FA. That was about five months ago and nothing has happened. Perhaps they didn’t see the behaviors during the brief time that they were observing the student. I work with this student 40 hours a week. They looked at her for about 30 minutes. When I told them again, a few weeks ago, that these behaviors are just as prevalent, they told me to give it some more time. They made a minor change and we should wait. In the meantime she’s been biting herself with tissue damage. However, anyone who looked at her data sheet would see a nice large group of zeros. Her data sheet makes her look like a calm cool collected individual.
Why shouldn’t we look at the reasons why so many students are being referred to JRC? When I started there, the total population was 200. I think now it’s up to 250. In three years, it has grown by 25%. (if my math is correct )
Don’t you think that if you turned your attention to these other schools to find out why the treatments aren’t working, that might be a better solution? Then the schools won’t have to refer them elsewhere and JRC won’t need to use skin-shock.
I’d also like to know what you would do for the students at JRC, if they are shut down. Where would they go? What do you think would happen to them? Just so you know, simply removing the electrodes and then continuing the program at JRC isn’t really an option. That would be tantamount to turning JRC into a school just like the schools from where all their students came.
I am in agreement with Ann, to repeat her question, “Where would they go?â€. There is an old adage that goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. If people who oppose JRC get what they want and eliminate JRC’s ability to use the GED a lot of students are going to regress very quickly and start causing a great deal of harm to themselves. This has happened before in the past. If the GED is to stop being used there needs to be an effective plan in place for what to do instead. JRC won’t be afforded this luxury. The ability to use the GED will be stopped immediately with no real effective tools in place.
If JRC is shut down completely, while the people who oppose JRC are patting each other on the back for a job well done, the students of JRC are going to be moved to other placements that are not equipped to handle them. The headlines in the papers will read “Student’s new placement doesn’t use shockâ€. On the surface that sounds great, they are no longer at that “bad place that shocks†anymore. In reality their fate will be far worse, especially for the students with the most extreme behaviors.
Some of the students, both high and low functioning will be shuffled back to the back wards of psychiatric hospitals, there they will be put back on eight to ten different medications, basically drugged to the point where they are pretty much catatonic. Some children will be on so many drugs that they will sleep all day and drool all over themselves. These high doses of medication will cause them to gain weight and take their toll on the student’s internal organs. Some will be on such high doses of medication that they won’t even recognize their parents when their parents come to visit.
Some students will go to other placements where there is little supervision. Sexual assaults and abuse can be very common in these placements, both by staff and other students. Some of these placements will let the student walk out the front door if they wish. Teenage girls can be on the streets for days or weeks and the sexual predators there will take full advantage. On the streets, some children will prostitute themselves to survive. Some will have sex forced on them. They will be exposed to drugs and STDs.
Some students will end up in jail and locked facilities, even if that is not where they belong. Here they risk being raped or killed daily. Prisons these days don’t focus on teaching daily living skills or providing an education. If they learn any skills, these will be from other prisoners. They will learn how to be better criminals they will become more violent and then eventually be turned out back into society.
If you read all of those letters from parents, you’ll see where the students will go. Where they came from is where they will return to. All of this talk of “functional analysis†is largely theoretical. By that I don’t mean to dismiss the point of view of others that think it would be useful. If it is being done at other placements, it is not being done effectively. On average JRC students have been in five other placements and they end up at JRC because the other placements were not successful. JRC has been expanding because it has been successful where no one else was.
Many of the students at JRC were previously were placed at some of the “best†facilities, with the “best†minds using positive programming. While publicly many of these agencies bad mouth JRC and say shut JRC down. When the have a student that they “can’t handle†or “can’t make progress with†They call JRC. I am not trying to detract from these facilities. As I think many of them do good work. As I stated in a previous post, I think that most agencies that provide services really want to help.
As Ann put it so well “Don’t you think that if you turned your attention to these other schools to find out why the treatments aren’t working, that might be a better solution? Then the schools won’t have to refer them elsewhere and JRC won’t need to use skin-shockâ€.
These parents send their children to JRC because JRC offers hope where there was none and delivers on that promise. Many of the agencies that promise to do a full functional analysis of the behavior and then seek to treat it have only delivered empty promises. As Ann pointed out earlier, the students at JRC are well cared for, well supervised, and safe.
I hope the dialog continues, as I think this is where real progress will be made. It is my sincere hope that one day the GED will no longer be used. But I hope that it will be because safer more effective tools are available rather than theory about what “could†be done instead. Otherwise these students will end up exactly where they came from. That is the reality of the services that are available in this area. Talk of better methods (Functional Analysis or others) is great, but it is just talk if these other schools aren’t using it or aren’t using it effectively. As long as that continues, there will still be a need for JRC.
Alexius: “All of this talk of ‘functional analysis’ is largely theoretical. By that I don’t mean to dismiss the point of view of others that think it would be useful. If it is being done at other placements, it is not being done effectively.”
Regarding your first sentence in that quote… your last sentence there shows exactly why all talk of functional analysis is *not* largely theoretical.
Given my emphasis on using an interactionist Lewinian framework (which includes the use of any ethical means of gaining useful information that there is, be it FBA, Structural Analysis, Repertory Grid, etc), and given the statement made by Lewin (that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”)… talk of functional assessment – no matter how theoretical it sounds – is an essential part of understanding why someone does what they do.
Alexius: “Talk of better methods (Functional Analysis or others) is great, but it is just talk if these other schools aren’t using it or aren’t using it effectively.”
Wrong. If that were true then there’s no point having any services for those who engage in actions which cause concern to other people, since the very idea that other people not using the methods properly is being used there to justify the JRC not doing it better.
I’m with Andrea when she said: “… if previous FBAs have not provided solutions that helped the student, that still does NOT mean that the aversive treatments at JRC are the correct means! It simply means that the cause for the problems has not been properly and fully identified.
Jonathan’s point (“… this is the time to work with some one who is more expert than the average behavior analyst…”) is also relevant. If the behaviour analysts (where-ever they are, including JRC) are still failing to pick up on the likely causes of a particularly troublesome activity engaged in by a client, then the ethical course of action is to engage the services of someone who has much more expertise (at least in a consultancy capacity)… and to listen to what that person says, *and then do what s/he says to do*.
Alexius: “Talk of better methods (Functional Analysis or others) is great, but it is just talk if these other schools aren’t using it or aren’t using it effectively.”
It is not just talk in that situation… and other schools failing to use FBA properly certainly doesn’t justify the use of the GED at JRC. All it means is that people in other places are not doing their jobs properly… and – if the staff at JRC are not prepared to undertake the responsibility of finding out for themselves what is driving a child’s behaviour into actions of concern to others – neither are the staff there doing their job properly.
When I deal with clients, and I find that something in previous assessments has not been done properly, I do that part of the assessment myself in order to get the information that such a part would give me. Case in point… student participating in my MEd thesis study… during high school and junior high school, no school counselling on any sort of issue relating to future educational or occupational matters. He is now in polytechnic having serious mathematics learning problems, and his performance is quite badly behind. Since he started as my case study volunteer, I asked him about what he’s good at, what he likes doing, and what he’s not strong in and what he sees himself doing for work activity in the future (after graduation).
Not once was he asked any of those questions by a school counsellor, even at high school. This is not saying that I have this extra knowledge that the counsellors here don’t have (in terms of methods of workng)… it’s to say that the people here are not doing their jobs properly. So I do that part of the assessment myself… and we find out then that the student concerned has been allowed to drift into course of study which was entirely inappropriate for his career needs and wishes, and which was also highly dependent upon the area of skills in which he experiences his major learning problems.
Had the right questions been asked at the right time, his “behaviour of concern” (lack of adequate progress in his studies) could have been avoided. The polytechnic to the punitive route without seeking to understand why he was lagging behind. This lead to more stress and less ability to do his studies. In so doing, it compounded the problem.
As Andrea says: “Above all, one should never punish someone for having problems!”
Any place using punitive methods in whatever field does exactly that.
Ann,
“For everyone on here who is talking about doing an FA, and finding out the cause of the behaviors instead of just treating the actual behaviors, why on earth are you so quick to simply eliminate what you see as the problem? (JRC)â€
JRC is not the problem.
“JRC accepts students from other schools and placements who have expelled them. Do we agree on this? While it’s probably true that not every student is there because of being expelled from a previous placement, most are. Some of these previous placements are public schools, some are special education schools, some are psychiatric hospitals.â€
Yes, we agree on this, but I note that to do so is illegal, a special ed student can not be expelled from a public school.
“All along I have argued that other schools have cases of abuse and neglect, at the very least, the other two schools besides JRC, where I have worked. I’ve stated that it perplexes me as to why JRC is so under the microscope while these other schools receive no media attention.â€
Tu quoque Ann, I abhor the abuse in other schools too and denounce it when I hear of it.
“A lot of the people in this blog have argued that all JRC needs to do is run FA’s and get to the cause of the behavior and they wouldn’t need to use skin-shock. So if everyone in here is for that kind of treatment when it comes to students, why not do it on schools?â€
Good question, I encourage you to encourage others to use this technique and to set the good exmaple by using it yourself.
“Why are these other schools failing their students? Are they too quick to get rid of problem students? Why is it that they have to expel them?â€
I can not know based on this alone; maybe; I can not know based on this alone.
“How could it possibly get to the point where the only viable option is electric shock? Is it the staff? Is it the environment? Is it the medications? I would like to know the answers to these questions. I work at a school now that uses ABA. I see how they do things.â€
Wait, aren’t we debating whether electric shock is the only viable option? Yous eem to have assumed this.
“I told my supervisor about a problem behavior that wasn’t being measured. They said they were going to do an FA. That was about five months ago and nothing has happened. Perhaps they didn’t see the behaviors during the brief time that they were observing the student. I work with this student 40 hours a week. They looked at her for about 30 minutes. When I told them again, a few weeks ago, that these behaviors are just as prevalent, they told me to give it some more time. They made a minor change and we should wait. In the meantime she’s been biting herself with tissue damage. However, anyone who looked at her data sheet would see a nice large group of zeros. Her data sheet makes her look like a calm cool collected individual.â€
This is a problem, but it doesn’t prove you point about FAs.
“Why shouldn’t we look at the reasons why so many students are being referred to JRC? When I started there, the total population was 200. I think now it’s up to 250. In three years, it has grown by 25%. (if my math is correct).
The answer you are looking for is 20%. I am all for looking at why so many students are reffered to JRC.
“Don’t you think that if you turned your attention to these other schools to find out why the treatments aren’t working, that might be a better solution? Then the schools won’t have to refer them elsewhere and JRC won’t need to use skin-shock.â€
Petitio Principii, you have begged the question by using a form of circular logic. You have assumed what you are trying to prove.
“I’d also like to know what you would do for the students at JRC, if they are shut down. Where would they go? What do you think would happen to them?â€
I don’t know form this alone; somewhere; that would depend on where they went.
“Just so you know, simply removing the electrodes and then continuing the program at JRC isn’t really an option.â€
How do you know?
“That would be tantamount to turning JRC into a school just like the schools from where all their students came.â€
A school that enagages in illegal behavior?
“I am in agreement with Ann, to repeat her question, “Where would they go?â€.â€
How can we answer without having assessed somone in real life? I suppose if you demand an answer now I will simply say “somewhereâ€.
“There is an old adage that goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.â€
I do indeed want to get that.
If people who oppose JRC get what they want and eliminate JRC’s ability to use the GED a lot of students are going to regress very quickly and start causing a great deal of harm to themselves. This has happened before in the past.â€
Via the phenomena of recovery; that is very true.
“If the GED is to stop being used there needs to be an effective plan in place for what to do instead.â€
I believe you answer your own problem form earlier on.
“The ability to use the GED will be stopped immediately with no real effective tools in place.â€
Maybe you think about making some plans, just in case (Yes, I know very well how much planning that likely involves).
“If JRC is shut down completely, while the people who oppose JRC are patting each other on the back for a job well done, the students of JRC are going to be moved to other placements that are not equipped to handle them. The headlines in the papers will read “Student’s new placement doesn’t use shockâ€. On the surface that sounds great, they are no longer at that “bad place that shocks†anymore. In reality their fate will be far worse, especially for the students with the most extreme behaviors.â€
You seem to be assuming one of the things you should be trying to prove.
“Some of the students, both high and low functioning will be shuffled back to the back wards of psychiatric hospitals, there they will be put back on eight to ten different medications, basically drugged to the point where they are pretty much catatonic. Some children will be on so many drugs that they will sleep all day and drool all over themselves. These high doses of medication will cause them to gain weight and take their toll on the student’s internal organs. Some will be on such high doses of medication that they won’t even recognize their parents when their parents come to visit.â€
This is a false dilemna, either students get positive punishment via the GED or the end up on 20 something medications and drooling.
“Some students will go to other placements where there is little supervision. Sexual assaults and abuse can be very common in these placements, both by staff and other students. Some of these placements will let the student walk out the front door if they wish. Teenage girls can be on the streets for days or weeks and the sexual predators there will take full advantage. On the streets, some children will prostitute themselves to survive. Some will have sex forced on them. They will be exposed to drugs and STDs.â€
All true, but you can’t say that no shock = sexual abuse or you use a logicla error.
“Some students will end up in jail and locked facilities, even if that is not where they belong. Here they risk being raped or killed daily. Prisons these days don’t focus on teaching daily living skills or providing an education. If they learn any skills, these will be from other prisoners. They will learn how to be better criminals they will become more violent and then eventually be turned out back into society.â€
See my comment above.
“If you read all of those letters from parents, you’ll see where the students will go. Where they came from is where they will return to. All of this talk of “functional analysis†is largely theoretical. By that I don’t mean to dismiss the point of view of others that think it would be useful. If it is being done at other placements, it is not being done effectively. On average JRC students have been in five other placements and they end up at JRC because the other placements were not successful. JRC has been expanding because it has been successful where no one else was.â€
I will be the first to admit that it is theoretical, but I propose that perhaps it still should be tried before we pop the GED into a backpack.
“Many of the students at JRC were previously were placed at some of the “best†facilities, with the “best†minds using positive programming. While publicly many of these agencies bad mouth JRC and say shut JRC down. When the have a student that they “can’t handle†or “can’t make progress with†They call JRC. I am not trying to detract from these facilities. As I think many of them do good work. As I stated in a previous post, I think that most agencies that provide services really want to help.â€
I think the same of JRC, that they really want to help. As for the best agencies, I would be interested in knowing who they were.
“As Ann put it so well “Don’t you think that if you turned your attention to these other schools to find out why the treatments aren’t working, that might be a better solution? Then the schools won’t have to refer them elsewhere and JRC won’t need to use skin-shockâ€.â€
As I said to Ann, I am all for it. However, as I also said to Ann you use circualr reaosning when you assume what you try to prove.
“These parents send their children to JRC because JRC offers hope where there was none and delivers on that promise.â€
Excellent, I am happy to hear it (and I mean that), but that doesn’t prove that shock is ethical, that what the parents want is the ethical, or that other methods wouldn’t achieve the same.
“Many of the agencies that promise to do a full functional analysis of the behavior and then seek to treat it have only delivered empty promises. As Ann pointed out earlier, the students at JRC are well cared for, well supervised, and safe.â€
For example?
“I hope the dialog continues, as I think this is where real progress will be made. It is my sincere hope that one day the GED will no longer be used. But I hope that it will be because safer more effective tools are available rather than theory about what “could†be done instead. Otherwise these students will end up exactly where they came from. That is the reality of the services that are available in this area. Talk of better methods (Functional Analysis or others) is great, but it is just talk if these other schools aren’t using it or aren’t using it effectively. As long as that continues, there will still be a need for JRC.â€
So, as long as there is poor use of positive reinforcement, there is a need for a place that employs shock. This is circular reasoning.
I don’t believe that places like JRC need to resort to the the methods they do. Furthermore, I speak as someone who is working with kids of the same sort they get.
I work at a school program for secondary students with emotional and behavioural problems. Many of them have additional things going on that interact with their self-management difficulties, including ADHD, Tourette’s, OCD, Asperger’s, Bipolar, self-harming, substance abuse and so on. Some of them have stayed at psychiatric hospitals, a few have been in juvenile detention centers and therefore have parole officers to answer to, and more than a few of them come from very problematic home environments. Of the over 29,500 students in that district, these are the 25 or so students who have the most difficult and entrenched problems.
Our goals are to get these students through their study programs, to help them learn to manage their behaviour, to be able to work with other people, and to be able to transition back into their home schools. Of course, the challenge of having five to ten EBD students in one class is that there are more opportunities for people to be aggravated by others.
The staff cares about the well-being of the students. In addition to spot-discussions to address issues, we also have twice-weekly staff meetings where we discuss particular student’s progress and problems, seek to determine why they are having problems, and what we want to do to or to change to address those.
We work by positive reinforcement, and only remove a student from the classroom as needed for a few minutes for them to calm down, or for a day to get their behaviour more stable and back on track to rejoin their peers. I am a paraprofessional, and also do educational/therapeutic horticultural activities with them.
I like the students. I never yell at them. I’ve only beaten them when playing chess. We have a hands-off policy, and would NEVER resort to physical or electroshock punishment.
It’s not necessary.
andrea
Well, I can with the three students whom I’ve played so far, but likely someone will show up who’s better than I am. I haven’t really played much chess in a few decades. For these students I point out tactical options to them.
Chess is useful not only for developing logical thinking stills, but also for helping those impulsive students learn control — if you take the first move you see, you can easily lose pieces or opportunities for much better moves! And since we’re working together on strategy, there’s less of an ego investment on their part. I can easily complement a clever move when it’s made. Plus, every now and then I make some foolish move and lose a piece unnecessarily — I have my own distractibility factor to deal with…
andrea
Alexius, thank you for your comments. Even though I feel I could’ve held my own as the only one defending JRC, it sure is nice to hear someone else on my side.
Jonathan,
Jonathan:JRC is not the problem.
Okay. What is the problem?
Jonathan: Yes, we agree on this, but I note that to do so is illegal, a special ed student can not be expelled from a public school.
Are you sure? the schools where I’ve worked have taken in students from public schools, so how does that happen?
Jonathan: Tu quoque Ann, I abhor the abuse in other schools too and denounce it when I hear of it.
I’m glad we agree on this.
Jonathan: Good question, I encourage you to encourage others to use this technique and to set the good exmaple by using it yourself.
I’d like to have quality control and staff discussion boards at all places of business, not just schools.
Jonathan: Wait, aren’t we debating whether electric shock is the only viable option? Yous eem to have assumed this.
I guess what I meant was how could it get to the point where a parent feels that the only viable option is electric shock. Maybe some parents choose other options, but obviously some don’t.
Jonathan: This is a problem, but it doesn’t prove you point about FAs.
I’m not trying to prove that FA’s don’t work, just that my experience with them has been that they don’t really produce the desired results.
Jonathan: The answer you are looking for is 20%. I am all for looking at why so many students are reffered to JRC.
Oops. I was doing “50 is what percent of 200”.
Jonathan: Petitio Principii, you have begged the question by using a form of circular logic. You have assumed what you are trying to prove.
Is that latin?
Ok. Well I haven’t proved anything, yet. Isn’t assuming something the first step in proving that it’s true?
Me: Just so you know, simply removing the electrodes and then continuing the program at JRC isn’t really an option.â€
Jonathan: How do you know?
JRC believes in treating students for the most part without the use of psychotropic meds. If they continued to do that, they would need to use mechanical restraints. They would have to have many students in restraint all the time. This would pose a danger to students and staff. Anytime the staff have to physically restrain a student ( which is what is done prior to them being placed in mechanical restraints) that requires a lot of staff.
Also, they would need to have many more 1:1 staff. Once a student becomes a GED student, they are usually able to be faded from having a 1:1.
Of course they could use meds but that goes against their philosophy. The quality of life for the students on GEDs, once they reduce their behaviors, is better than when they were drugged up.
Jonathan: A school that enagages in illegal behavior?
Assuming they keep the cameras and monitoring, strict staff evaluations and quality control, they would still be better than other schools.
Hi Ann,
“Okay. What is the problem?â€
The problem is the JRC’s use of aversives in the absence of an FA.
“Are you sure? the schools where I’ve worked have taken in students from public schools, so how does that happen?â€
Yes, Public Law 94-142 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) expressly forbids it. However, this only works if a child has an IEP. This issue has come up several times has been affirmed by the US Courts.
“I’d like to have quality control and staff discussion boards at all places of business, not just schools.â€
Ditto..
“I guess what I meant was how could it get to the point where a parent feels that the only viable option is electric shock. Maybe some parents choose other options, but obviously some don’t.â€
It could be a lot of things. However, this doesn’t tell us enough to make a good decision.
Here, let me re-word this to show a problem with it:
Example 1: I guess what I meant was how could it get to the point where a parent feels that the only viable option is herbal medicine. Maybe some parents choose other options, but obviously some don’t.
Example2: I guess what I meant was how could it get to the point where a parent feels that the only viable option is psychics. Maybe some parents choose other options, but obviously some don’t.
“I’m not trying to prove that FA’s don’t work, just that my experience with them has been that they don’t really produce the desired results.â€
Noted,
“Oops. I was doing “50 is what percent of 200â€.â€
Got it…
“Is that latin? Ok. Well I haven’t proved anything, yet. Isn’t assuming something the first step in proving that it’s true?â€
Yes, it roughly translates to “begging the questionâ€. one can not assume a concept to prove it is true. One asks an empirical question or they form a hypothesis and then test and reject or not, the null hypothesis.
“JRC believes in treating students for the most part without the use of psychotropic meds. If they continued to do that, they would need to use mechanical restraints. They would have to have many students in restraint all the time. This would pose a danger to students and staff. Anytime the staff have to physically restrain a student ( which is what is done prior to them being placed in mechanical restraints) that requires a lot of staff.
Also, they would need to have many more 1:1 staff. Once a student becomes a GED student, they are usually able to be faded from having a 1:1.
Of course they could use meds but that goes against their philosophy. The quality of life for the students on GEDs, once they reduce their behaviors, is better than when they were drugged up.’
2 comments:
1) Who gets to decide for the student if their quality of life is better?
2) Going back to your original statement, where you refer to removing the electrodes not being option, it seems that it is not an option because, the JRC staff, won’t allow it to be (due to their values). It is not that I agree with either medication or with restraint, but I want to point out why removing electrodes isn’t an option at JRC, via your explanation.
“Assuming they keep the cameras and monitoring, strict staff evaluations and quality control, they would still be better than other schools.â€
I won’t deny it, but they still will be unethical and illegal if JRC is just like any other school via those schools booting IEP’ed students, as you have suggested.
Ann: ” The quality of life for the students on GEDs, once they reduce their behaviors, is better than when they were drugged up.”
Jonathan: “1) Who gets to decide for the student if their quality of life is better?”
What interests me is *how* the assessment of quality of life is made. Is it a standardised assessment? Are the childen asked for their views? Is the assessment deliberated over fully in a case conference with the child present? I’m not sure that the assessment of QoL would be anything I (as an educational psychologist) would recognise as an authentic assessment if there wasn’t a good mixture of a broad spectrum of assessment instruments/technisues being used, and a substantial amount of time given to interpreting the evidence obtained.
shouldn’t type late at night: “assessment instruments/technisues” -> “assessment instruments/techni*q*ues”
I have been employed at JRC for several years now, and what nobody really seems to understand, or is willing to consider, is that our students are some of the most self-destructive, and violent students in the country. There are no other agencies willing to work with the students due to there severe behaviors. I have seen many students make significant improvements with the use of the GED. What’s worse- allowing someone to continually bang their head against a cement wall, or treat them with a 2 second skin shock.
Addendum- I have tried the GED on myself prior to accepting this job. It is very uncomfortable, but it is not inhumane considering any other alternative for these students.
Ditto David,
Hi Sam,
“I have been employed at JRC for several years now, and what nobody really seems to understand, or is willing to consider, is that our students are some of the most self-destructive, and violent students in the country.â€
I can’t speak for others, but this point has been reiterated time and again, so I would be dumfounded if the regular posters here haven’t grasped that.
“There are no other agencies willing to work with the students due to there severe behaviors.â€
It needs to be noted here that if the students have an IEP, then the schools don’t have a choice.
“I have seen many students make significant improvements with the use of the GED.â€
Which is in tune with a whole pile of research supporting the efficacy of positive punishment. I don’t think this is a point under contention in this discussion.
“What’s worse- allowing someone to continually bang their head against a cement wall, or treat them with a 2 second skin shock.â€
I can not tell, I would have to know if the only option was head banging or 2 second skin shock.
“Addendum- I have tried the GED on myself prior to accepting this job. It is very uncomfortable, but it is not inhumane considering any other alternative for these students.â€
I understand, I have been told by Dr. Israel that most of the JRC staff and even parents try the GED at some point. I think that is admirable. Certainly typically developing adults have used skin shock devices to help them control for bad habits, such as poor posture Azrin et al. (1968). I myself have used a performance management contingency based on an analog to avoidance of the loss of a reinforcer (subtype of negative reinforcement which involves aversive control) to help me increase some behaviors I wanted to work on in my own life.
However, there is a difference here. The use of the GED was not decided for me, by the person who acted as performance manager, nor was it the courts, or my parents, or any school staff, ditto for the people in Azrin’s study. The persons at JRC do not have this privilege per se. There is an ethical gap here, that is fueled by a potentially false dilemma that goes no shock = head banging.
Jonathan,
How is it proven whether something is ethical or not?
Jonathan:”The problem is the JRC’s use of aversives in the absence of an FA.”
There is no absence of an FA. FA’s have been done in the past.
JONATHAN:It could be a lot of things. However, this doesn’t tell us enough to make a good decision.
Are you saying that parents are the ones who need to go to the schools and find out why the schools are failing their kids?
JONATHAN:”one can not assume a concept to prove it is true. One asks an empirical question or they form a hypothesis and then test and reject or not, the null hypothesis.”
Are you nitpicking over my phrasing? 🙂 How should I have phrased it?
JONATHAN:“2 comments:
1) Who gets to decide for the student if their quality of life is better?
The ones in charge. Parents, family members, guardians. I certainly wouldn’t want the govt to decide.
JONATHAN:”2) Going back to your original statement, where you refer to removing the electrodes not being option, it seems that it is not an option because, the JRC staff, won’t allow it to be (due to their values). It is not that I agree with either medication or with restraint, but I want to point out why removing electrodes isn’t an option at JRC, via your explanation.
Well, I believe I said that it was an option, just not a very good one. They would be forced to operate in a manner that is not what they believe is in the best interests of their clients.
JONATHAN: I won’t deny it, but they still will be unethical and illegal if JRC is just like any other school via those schools booting IEP’ed students, as you have suggested.
First of all, re: Schools booting IEP’ed students, I don’t know the specifics of students’ discharges from schools. I just know that many students I’ve worked with have come from public schools and have been sent back to public schools.
Second-I’ve not suggested that JRC is unethical or illegal. You think they are.
Are you saying that they will still be unethical and illegal if they get rid of GED’s, but keep staff monitoring by camera, staff evaluations and quality control?
Sam said, “I have been employed at JRC for several years now, and what nobody really seems to understand, or is willing to consider, is that our students are some of the most self-destructive, and violent students in the country. There are no other agencies willing to work with the students due to there severe behaviors.”
Did you read my earlier post? I also work with students like that. We don’t use shock therapy to help our students learn to manage their behaviour. Saying that JRC has to use electric shock because “there are no other agencies” is a straw man fallacy.
Sam also said, “What’s worse- allowing someone to continually bang their head against a cement wall, or treat them with a 2 second skin shock.”
This is a false dilemma — using electric shock is hardly the only approach to head banging.
As I have said before, such approaches are reactions to the behaviour as effects, and do not address the causes of those behaviours (WHY someone is banging their head etc.). With approaches like that, it’s not surprising that former students report regression, because the underlying problems aren’t necessarily being addressed.
andrea
Andrea (about the other approaches to dealing with headbanging apart from electric shock): “This is a false dilemma—using electric shock is hardly the only approach to head banging.”
I agree. Indeed, the punishment approach is fraught with issues of long-term ineffectiveness…. as we see later…
Andrea: “As I have said before, such approaches are reactions to the behaviour as effects, and do not address the causes of those behaviours (WHY someone is banging their head etc.).”
Exactly, and this is why a proper functional behavioural assessment has to be done… this is one of the best ways to at least get to know what sort of questions one needs to be asking about something.
Andrea: “With approaches like that, it’s not surprising that former students report regression, because the underlying problems aren’t necessarily being addressed.
SND!
Ann: “There is no absence of an FA. FA’s have been done in the past.”
If there was nothing gained from those, then why doesn’t JRC do their own??? That would make sense to me, but then… I’m conscientious in my work… doesn’t appear to be the same conscientiousness at JRC if they can’t be arsed to re-assess a child for themselves! Just to make sure that any earlier assessments were correctly done…
This is an ethics issue.
I am so sad and heartbroken to hear of the treatment of these people in these centres. I’m in Northern Ireland, I have a little boy with Autism and I know how scared he would be if he was being treated like this. What cruelty! What wickedness! People with Autism have no badness in them, if they lash out it’s usually in defence… I hope sincerely that these people will answer for their part in the deaths of any under their care. MAY GOD NEVER FORGIVE THEM!
Click to access school_report.pdf
Observations and Findings of Out-of-State Program Visitation Judge Rotenberg Educational Center
clone3g: “Observations and Findings of Out-of-State Program Visitation Judge Rotenberg Educational Center”
Holy shit!
So basically, all the concerns that we have had *and more* were correct!
Time for Dr Israel to find another profession….. like sweeping roads.
If this is all true then why is it that this very same report back in September said JRC was doing an excellent job?
From an article in the Boston Globe: “Flammia noted that New York inspectors had given the Judge Rotenberg Center high marks for safety last September, but he believes they turned against the school after the publicity surrounding a lawsuit filed this spring by the mother of a New York student.”
Read the whole article here: http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/06/15/ny_report_denounces_shock_use_at_school/
Sounds like they’re bowing to public pressure.
Come on, Ann… that the best you can do?
From the same article: “‘It’s troubling that it’s necessary for New York officials to point out the violations of Massachusetts law taking place at this facility,’ said state Senator Brian Joyce, the Milton Democrat who has led the effort to ban electric shock.”
I don’t believe for a minute the “no other agencies willing to work with certain kinds of people” thing. I know the sort of people who end up in the JRC, and I’ve known them (and been one of them) in other institutions on the other side of the country, so I know full well there are plenty of other places that will take the same sort of people woh end up there.
That’s just another little piece in the mythology of the JRC as the heroic last resort for a whole alien classification of people known as I guess the “otherwise impossible”. It’s not. The people in there are the same as people in many other places, even the torture resembles torture in many other places, nothing about it is all that unique except that it’s a big name that flaunts its torture facilities openly.