August 9, 2010:   We were near completion of a revision of this review  in mid July when we received the long awaited reply to our review from Carlbrook.  This led to discussions with Carlbrook. It was later mutually agreed that they would pull back that reply and send a further reply resulting from our discussions.  These discussions were upbeat and positive.  It is our intention -- and we think that of Carlbrook -- that this will lead to a discussion of Carlbrook where we and they might ultimately agree to disagree about some things but where that discussion will demonstrate mutual respect.  

Keep in mind that Carlbrook was responding to the review as it was on May 18, 2010.  A copy of the article as it was on that date can be viewed by clicking on this sentence.  Additional revisions to this review will follow completion of our update on Guidelines on Substance Abuse and Addiction, currently underway. 

August 29, 2010:   Carlbrook has provided us with a detailed response to our criticisms.    We will update our review as a result of this response and make the response more reader friendly, and perhaps comment on their response  in the near future.  For now, we simply want to do justice to Carlbrook getting their input in place. We thank them for the considerable effort they have put into this.

September 7, 2010:  Update is underway.  Discontinuities may occur on text until this is completed.  Blue print indicates copy which will become links. 

Carlbrook School in some ways represents the highest forms of excellence and drops the ball in other ways.  We think it tends to get the hard stuff right then drop the ball on the easy stuff. But the easy stuff matters.  We had a review in place at this location for some time with gradual adjustments.   Carlbrook responded constructively to that review in August, 2010, so we have preserved the review as it was on May 18, 2010,  as that is what they were responding to.  We appreciate their response, and believe that it moves us ahead in understanding Carlbrook School and sharing that understanding with our readers.  While we still have some specific criticisms, we want to make certain our respect for the excellence of Carlbrook in most areas is clearly understood.     

(Article continues below box)

First, what is Carlbrook?  It is a coeducational college preparatory boarding school with high academic standards for older high school students with a possibly checkered past.  Ordinarily students enter Carlbrook when they are within two years or close to being within two years of high school graduation.  High school freshman need not apply.  The students who attend Carlbrook tend to be students who were too high risk for admission to most quality boarding schools because of psychological or behavioral reasons at the time of enrollment, but where the intention is to remove or greatly diminish those risk factors by the time of college enrollment.  Note that we are not calling Carlbrook a therapeutic school or an emotional growth school. More about the reason we do not apply that terminology later.

Among the attractive attributes of Carlbrook School are its very high academic standards, its built-in transition system, the excellence of its "Advising Faculty" (who might be called a therapeutic staff or staff of therapists in another school), its small size leading to personal attention, its experienced leadership, and its elegant physical plant. 

Let's examine that list one item at a time. 

First, the academic standards:  We are not willing to name other schools to make a specific comparison.  Suffice it to say that a student at Carlbrook will be exposed to educational resources and challenges which exceed those at many of the finest private schools in the country.  Academics are under the capable direction of Glenn Bender, Ph. D., a man well known to us and well admired by us at FamilyLight ^sm.  In academic terms, you will not do better in any therapeutic school in the country and possibly not at any school of any kind. In its response to us, Carlbrook has added information regarding the strength of its educational offerings. 

The transition program, is for all therapeutic schools to emulate.  It is the model for our Guidelines on Transition. Special teaching for parents plus the introduction of transition staff to the students several months before graduation lays the groundwork for a program of intense support for students following a year from their physical departure from the school.  We leave a detailed explanation to the school, but it is our understanding that in addition to intense individual long distance communication, the transition staff will travel to a graduate in crisis for crisis intervention purposes, and will provide intensive guidance to parents.   In its response to us, Carlbrook has added information regarding the strength of this programming. 

The "Advising Faculty" is powerhouse of clinical impact that would make most therapeutic schools jealous.  It gets better when you look at several more masters' level clinicians on the Student Life Faculty and the Alumni and Transition Services Faculty.  This "Advising Faculty" is capable of providing the clinical services of the best of the therapeutic schools. In addition, we call attention to the very close working relationship between Carlbrook and Duke University. That is certainly excellent faculty coverage for a student body of that size.  In its response to us, Carlbrook has added information regarding the strength of this programming. 

Carlbrook School was founded by two relatively young men, Justin Merritt and Grant Price.  They were wise enough to bring on board two highly experienced and well seasoned professionals familiar to FamilyLight ^sm prior to the founding of Carlbrook School to serve at the core of the leadership of the school: Dr. Glenn Bender and Timothy Brace.   They are at the heart of guiding the school to its position of excellence. 

Our concerns regarding Carlbrook involve, in part, the degree to which it is modeled after Cascade School, a now defunct school,  which FamilyLight currently believes was highly problematic from its inception, although we did refer to it at one point. Our concerns also involve one problematic incident with a client we referred to Carlbrook School that we believe was very badly handled.   Some other matters described below are also of concern to us. 

We expect that many competent professional referral sources and perhaps present and former Carlbrook students and their parents will disagree with some of our criticisms.  We invite them  to send us their dissenting views and we expect to publish them promptly upon receipt. Carlbrook School itself has done so, and we promptly posted what they had to say.  Carlbrook is welcome to update its response to us at any time and we will post that, also.  

Carlbrook has responded to our criticism comparing it to Cascade citing specific differences between Carlbrook and Cascade.  We do not dispute those specific differences, in general.  We have commented on their response in detail. We incorporate an encapsulated  

Our concerns with both schools -- now defunct Cascade and thriving Carlbrook -- derive from the fact both schools do many of the things that a therapeutic school would do, but avoid acknowledging that they are anything but an academic school serving students who are underachievers or too much at risk for admission to other schools.  There is an old saying that when something looks like a duck and has wings like a duck and quacks like a duck and has a bill like a duck and waddles like a duck, it’s a duck.  (Our apologies to Walt Whitman, who originated this line of thought, as Carlbrook pointed out to us in their response to our review).  Carlbrook does not want to be called a therapeutic school, so we won't call it that, but we think it quacks  and waddles like one.

In their response, Carlbrook vigorously and at some length, defends its approach, and we have posted our comments on that.  At the bottom line, we reaffirm our concern.  Curiously, one very recent encounter with Carlbrook admission confuses us further. 

Based upon our reasoning above,  Carlbrook might have chosen to call itself a therapeutic school.  So why does that matter? Two reasons:  When teens are on the mend, one of the most important principles is to learn integrity, and setting the example of double talk of this kind does seem to us to support that principle.  Second, if organizations and people provide mental health services, then it is appropriate for the school itself to be accountable for meeting mental health standards. 

Carlbrook appears to want to have it both ways: promoting its mental health services when it is to their advantage to do so, but retreating from a perception of being a mental health institution when that identity is inconvenient, especially when the accountability that implies comes into play.  In its reply, Carlbrook further confirmed the investment in credentialed mental health professionals, and explicitly denied being a mental health facility of any kind.  We find that confusing.   Carlbrook's reply assures us that individual "counseling professionals"  adhere to very high standards determined by a number of organizations.  Those "counseling professionals" sound a lot like mental health clinicians to us.  But whatever they are, Carlbrook does not, in its reply to us affirm institutional adherence to the kinds of standards it tells us are applicable to its "counseling professionals."  With the intensity of those services and what we assume to be the integration of those services into the total operation of the school, we remain concerned about that.  

Our greatest concern at Carlbrook was a single event that could be an anomaly but we are concerned about the absence of an acknowledgement that an error occurred and they would avoid handling a future incident in the same manner.  If Carlbrook were to acknowledge itself to be a mental health facility and apply accountability standards expected of mental health facilities, we do not think it would have happened, or, if it did, an error would be quickly acknowledged and steps taken to avoid a repeat.  An appropriately run mental health environment never takes any action except in the interest of the client/ patient/ student.  (One qualification:  When the actions of one person jeopardizes the safety or treatment of others, action to protect the larger group up to dismissal or discharge is appropriate, but it must be carried out in a manner least harmful to the person being dismissed.  Purely punitive actions have no place in any mental health facility.)

In the instance of concern to us, a student we referred to Carlbrook behaved in an extremely destructive manner.  We do not question that his behavior was extreme and that Carlbrook could appropriately dismiss him without possibility of reinstatement, provided that everyone involved understood the dismissal as a determination that there were mental health issues surfacing through the incident that Carlbrook could not serve, and the dismissal was not simply a punishment for bad behavior.  But what Carlbrook did was refer him to a specific wilderness program before they notified us, leaving both the parents and FamilyLight ^sm under the impression that there was a possibility of reinstatement if he did well in wilderness.  Parents accepted the referral in the belief that by doing so, their son could earn his way back. When we specifically asked if there was a possibility of reinstatement while the young man was in wilderness, Carlbrook was not encouraging but did not rule it out. 

We had every reason to believe that successful completion of wilderness would lead at least to serious consideration of reinstatement.  He did very well, but when we approached Carlbrook about reinstatement they advised us that there never had been a possibility of reinstatement.   In addition, this then took on the character of a disciplinary dismissal in the character of a conventional boarding school, not a therapeutic school, and that the thousands of dollars the parents paid for the wilderness program was something Carlbrook apparently intended as an expensive punishment.  We wondered whether the entire matter had been set up as a result of anger on the part of one or more key officials at Carlbrook, and the entire motivation might have been retribution.

As a result, the parents paid out many thousands of dollars on a program believing that they were preserving a route by which their son could return to graduate from Carlbrook -- a program neither the parents nor FamilyLight ^sm would have supported in that situation, except for purposes of earning the boy's re-entry to Carlbrook. 

We expect that when a school or anyone else recommends something to  or for a student in a context of mental health issues, it will do so only in a context of considering the long term benefit of the student involved. That is a fundamental principle of sound delivery of mental health services.

We are not satisfied that is what happened in this case.  It appeared that the ambiguity in the identity of the school gave them permission to overlook their mental health context.  The school appears to be attempting to sell itself on the basis of offering outstanding mental health resources -- which we do not deny -- while denying the responsibility to act as a mental health service when it is more convenient to avoid that responsibility.

Of greatest concern is that the school official we discussed this with after the event seemed represented no sense of why the school's behavior was inappropriate.  We don’t hold grudges based on past history.  Past behavior is only relevant if it helps to predict future behavior.  As matters stand, we have been given no reason for confidence that Carlbrook would not behave similarly in the future.  (This did not appear to have been handled by the well seasoned professionals we cited above, but that is another problem.  If  Tim Brace and Glenn Bender were by-passed in making these decisions, we need to ask why; if they participated, what were they thinking?)  Again, Carlbrook appears to act as if it has greater latitude than allowed by the principle we cite, because they do not claim to be a mental health environment.  We point to the duck analogy cited above.

Carlbrook has responded to this concern, and we have commented on their response. 

We have a further concern regarding the choices that have been made in addressing addiction related issues.  The relationship between Carlbrook and  Jeffrey M.. Georgi  is impressive and deserves credit.  In this relationship, the use of research based methods is greatly stressed (an interesting claim for a school that denies its identity as a therapeutic school).  Still we are mystified by some of their decisions and the absence of a rationale for them that we can comprehend. 

August 29, 2010:  This section on addiction calls for extensive revision based upon Carlbrook's recently received response to this review as it relates to this topic.  We will further update this in response to the Carlbrook response and then further after we complete the update on our Guidelines on Substance Abuse and Addiction.

Our greatest concern in the substance abuse area involves their decision about twelve-step work with students with a substance abuse history.  Grant Price advised us about the time the transition program was being put in place that Carlbrook decided against using twelve-step work in any form.   He stated that this was because “twelve-step work requires a lifetime commitment.”  We have several problems with that.

First, twelve step work does not require a lifetime commitment.  

Second, we have particular problems with admitting students who have benefitted by twelve-step work and prohibiting further participation.  To remove a previously successful treatment, support, or form of intervention regarding any serious health problem is not a responsible thing to do. The stated rationale leads us to question the care that was given the decision to reject twelve-step work, notwithstanding the access to research by Mr. Georgi and the impressive lineup of clinicians on Carlbrook’s “non-therapeutic” staff.   We wonder if this has more to do with the fact that this is how Cascade did things than objective study of the situation.  We also note that this approach sells well with parents who do not want to face the seriousness of their sons' and daughters' addictions.

This is confusing, because Grant Price explicitly stated the "no twelve-step" policy to us.  However we have a letter from Dr. Gillan Smith dated April 28, 2010, that seems to imply otherwise.  We simply don't know the reality behind what is stated in the letter. Is there peer influence and staff influence supporting continuing twelve-step involvement? Do these students attend twelve-step meetings in the community?  Does Carlbrook have staff who thoroughly understand twelve-step work and can give meaningful and constructive guidance to students who would benefit from twelve-step? 

Understanding how Carlbrook avoids acknowledgement that  it is a therapeutic school, we are concerned about what kind of wordplay is involved.     Is there a change or did Grant Price overstate the prohibition on twelve-step or did Gillan Smith overstate the support of twelve-step work?  We're not sure.  We hope that Carlbrook will clarify this in more detail than is contained in Dr. Smith's letter when if and when we receive the promised reply. 

We will be adding several articles on Substance Abuse and Addictions in our section  “Topics of Interest.”  We are also revising our  Substance Abuse Intervention Guidelines and related Guidelines on Twelve-Step Programming.  in a manner relevant to Carlbrook.  The revised guidelines and subsequent articles will further clarify our concerns about  Carlbrook’s approach to substance abuse issues.

If Carlbrook is seriously interested in focusing on "clean and sober" for the first year after graduation, as they state, as opposed to basing such an important policy decision on rank prejudice, they might consider research that says people with substance abuse history have much better statistics for remaining clean and sober the first year after stopping use if they attend 12 step meetings than if they do not.  We realize that is not the whole story. We applaud the decision of Carlbrook not to force everyone with a substance abuse history into 12-step work.   But we don't understand a person with the credentials of Mr. Georgi supporting this kind of policy or such a blatant misunderstanding of such a well known approach to recovery. 

Before we go further, in  the interest of full disclosure, we want to state that we are very favorable to twelve step work.  Our confidence in it goes beyond what the research confirms and into areas that available research has not finally resolved.   We do not encourage a twelve-step approach for everyone as a means of ending substance abuse.  We acknowledge that there is a kind of peer resistance to people recovering in twelve-step fellowships discontinuing participation.  People in twelve-step fellowships are encouraged to describe themselves as “recovering” as opposed to “cured” no matter how long they remain active in those groups. 

But nowhere will you find anything in the official literature of Alcoholics Anonymous or any other twelve-step fellowship we have studied, that suggests that a lifetime commitment is somehow a requirement of participation. In fact the official literature suggests the opposite. The principle at work is always “just for today” and stay sober “one day at a time.”  Even more than the peer resistance to leaving a twelve-step fellowship is a peer pressure backed by common slogans and many other references in official literature to avoid talking about or obsessing about a lifetime of sobriety but just to focus on this day. 

We do hear the “lifetime commitment” argument against twelve-step groups primarily from people who have a substance abuse history, and do not want to be fully abstinent.   Some say that they can manage that and perhaps some can.   Recent neurological research points to some of the reasons why many cannot.  We hope Carlbrook is not giving the “you can later drink/use socially” message to people who have had deeply entrenched difficulties with substance abuse. 

It is also difficult to understand the judgment of any qualified clinician if that clinician would support removing any resource that has been previously constructive in supporting abstinence in a person who has had substance abuse problems unless that support is demonstrably detrimental in a clearly evident way.   We have serious questions about the professional judgment of any therapist, clinician, advisor, mentor, or admission person who would deny access to twelve-step support for a person who has benefitted from twelve-step support.

We have attempted to speak with Mr. Georgi , whom we highly respect, regarding our concerns, but he has not responded to our initiatives.  We think with his knowledge of addictions, he, in particular, should be able to see the problem here.  We have an email from Kelly Dunbar, Director of Admission at Carlbrook from 2008, offering to comment and respond to some of our concerns -- but no such comment or response.  We have a new promise of that from Ms. Dunbar as of June 2010.

(Having criticized Carlbrook for its handling of substance abuse and addiction we also want to give credit where it is due.  Accompanying the letter of April 28, 2010, was a rather impressive document used in their education of their students on the topic of addictions, linked here.  Carlbrook at that time asked that we publicize it on our website). 

Carlbrook requires entering students to participate in a wilderness or other primary intervention program immediately prior to enrollment.  Students must travel directly from the wilderness or other primary intervention programs to Carlbrook without first going home.   We are not clear on exactly what primary intervention programs other than wilderness qualify. We are disappointed that this requirement remains in place.  This is usually stated as a requirement for wilderness participation with a qualifier added later that an alternative to wilderness might apply.

We do not believe that wilderness is appropriate for all students who would benefit from Carlbrook’s substantial clinical resources.  In particular, we believe that Carlbrook has resources appropriate to students with anxiety issues that would be exacerbated by most wilderness experiences.  Other intervention programs might not be harmful but we are not certain but what they might simply be an unnecessary expense in some cases.

When a school or program requires wilderness prior to all admissions, we think that indicates a mind-set that is focused on oppositional behavior, failing to take into account that there are teenagers with special needs that are not related to oppositional behavior.  We think that so long as this requirement is in place, Carlbrook is probably not appropriate for teens who have not presented as oppositional. 

With the recent shutdown of the Mount Bachelor Academy by the State of Oregon, we are reminded to think about the question of whether or not the activities that the press alleges at Mt. Bachelor might also be happening at Carlbrook. We frankly do not know.  We understand  that Carlbrook has a series of workshops somewhat similar to the “profeets” at Cedu. We hope these are not sleep-deprived marathon sessions. These were popular in the 1980s but have been discredited and some consider them abusive. 

(We don't object to workshops on special topics or marking specific milestones in a student's progress; we object to marathon sessions that interfere with normal sleeping, eating, and personal hygiene patterns.  This is the kind of practice in some programs that has motivated the agitation for federal regulation of therapeutic programs.  We agree with the regulation proponents that for the health and safety of students, government regulations should prohibit such practices.  We choose not to use the term "abuse" to characterize those practices, but we are convinced by recent research that such practices do not contribute to permanent change and introduce gratuitous discomfort, if not health risks, without a productive result.) 

We advise that parents check out policies and practices involving such seminars before enrolling their son or daughter.  The role model for Carlbrook being the defunct Cascade School, we think that issue calls for close attention.  In its prosperous days, Cascade was strongly influenced by the "emotional growth" processes of the 1980s and such seminars were intrinsic to that model.  We hope that Carlbrook has not copied that aspect of Cascade, but we simply do not know. We hope Carlbrook will also address this if and when they respond as promised to this review.

Our conclusion is that  Carlbrook  offers enough that is truly outstanding that, our  reservations notwithstanding, we encourage cautious consideration for high school juniors and seniors who meet the age and academic requirements and would not likely be admitted to a conventional school or would be at very high risk.  We would rule it out for a person who has previously benefitted from twelve-step work and for teens who have not presented as oppositional, even if their needs do align with the resources of the "advising" faculty. Carlbrook would arguably be a good choice when the student is already in wilderness or other qualifying primary intervention or evaluation program and has been resistant to twelve-step work even if there is a substance abuse history.  We do suggest attention to the other concerns we have noted above and suggest due diligence on the part of parents and referring professionals in weighing those concerns. 

Carlbrook clearly offers superior quality in many respects. It also has some apparent flaws its management is resistant to addressing.  We respect the quality but add a note of caution.   We are frankly more concerned about the resistance to discussion than about matters that we perceive to be flaws than about the flaws themselves.  We also point out that there are many highly competent referring professionals who would agree with us about the superior qualities and not about the shortcomings.  We look forward to the promised response from Carlbrook, and hope it is actually delivered in the near future and that they authorize us to print it verbatim.  We would also welcome an alternative view from one or more other referring professionals who do not share our reservations and concerns. 

August 9, 2010:   We were near completion of a revision of this review  in mid July when we received the long awaited reply to our review from Carlbrook.  This led to discussions with Carlbrook. It was later mutually agreed that they would pull back that reply and send a further reply resulting from our discussions.  These discussions were upbeat and positive.  It is our intention -- and we think that of Carlbrook -- that this will lead to a discussion of Carlbrook where we and they might ultimately agree to disagree about some things but where that discussion will demonstrate mutual respect.  

Keep in mind that Carlbrook was responding to the review as it was on May 18, 2010.  A copy of the article as it was on that date can be viewed by clicking on this sentence.  Additional revisions to this review will follow completion of our update on Guidelines on Substance Abuse and Addiction, currently underway. 

August 29, 2010:   Carlbrook has provided us with a detailed response to our criticisms.    We will update our review as a result of this response and make the response more reader friendly, and perhaps comment on their response  in the near future.  For now, we simply want to do justice to Carlbrook getting their input in place. We thank them for the considerable effort they have put into this.

Official web site of Carlbrook School

Letter from Dr. Gillan Smith of April 28, 2010 (published by request from Carlbrook)

Carlbrook Brain Development Supplement (published by request from Carlbrook)

Return to Individual Schools and Programs Index

Review of Carlbrook by Loi Eberle, Woodbury Reports, 2003

Profile by Private School Review

Feedback is invited. We will publish feedback in good taste, consistent with our standards.  Email FamilyLightResponse@yahoo.com

Disclaimer: No  program review, no matter how positive, is a blanket endorsement. No criticism is a blanket condemnation.  When we express our level of confidence in a school or program, that is our subjective opinion with which others might reasonably disagree.  When we assert something as fact, we have done our best to be accurate, but we cannot guarantee that all of our information is accurate and up to date. When we address compliance with our guidelines, you need to remember that these are only OUR guidelines -- not guidelines from an official source.  We have also set the bar very high, and do not expect any school or program to be in total compliance.  It is not appropriate to draw a conclusion of impropriety (or even failure to live up to conventional wisdom) from our lack of confidence in a school or program or from less than perfect conformity to our guidelines.  Some will say we expect too much. Readers are responsible for verifying accuracy of information supplied here prior to acting upon it. We are not responsible for inaccuracies.

Visitors:

UK Shopping

We do not specifically endorse UK Shopping. They "sponsor" our counter. 

Last updated 9-10-2010