July 11, 2010:  What follows is an exact copy of the Carlbrook review prior to this date, errors and all.  Click here to return to current review.  This remains in place for archival purposes only and no longer represents our views of Carlbrook School.

This is a difficult review to write without being misunderstood.  In the short time we have been putting reviews on the web, we have learned that even the mildest criticism of any school or program can be interpreted by the management of that school or program as an expression of anger by us, condemning the school or program as unacceptable.  That is not usually our intention, and it definitely is not our intention in this case.  So we want to say at the outset that we have concerns about Carlbrook School that we would like to see addressed, but we also see significant quality in the school.  Our criticisms are in the context of a belief that a good job can always be improved.  We have referred to Carlbrook and will likely do so again.

(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.

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.  

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.

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 the degree to which it is modeled after Cascade School, a failed emotional growth school from California, to which FamilyLight ^sm was unwilling to make referrals in its final years, punctuated by one problematic incident with a client we referred to Carlbrook School that we believe was very badly handled.  We expect that many competent professional referral sources will disagree with our criticisms.  We invite both Cascade School and other professional referral sources to send us their dissenting views and we expect to publish them promptly upon receipt. That is essential to being fair.

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 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.  

Based upon that reasoning, Cascade and Carlbrook certainly had/ have attributes of therapeutic schools.  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 playing semantic games with the kind of school attended does not support that principle.  Second, if organizations and people provide mental health services, then they need to be accountable for meeting mental health standards. 

Cascade School promoted itself as able to serve students needing psychiatric services, but when the psychiatrist and the school staff began to deliver contradictory reports to us regarding a student we referred. When we questioned the head of the school, the response was "We don't deal with that DSM stuff." ("DSM” refers to the official psychiatric diagnostic manual.)  This was after Cascade had assured us of their ability to serve the needs of a psychiatrically complex young lady appropriately, being fully aware of her history.  We never referred to Cascade again. 

We had other examples of Cascade getting into mental health procedures that were potentially risky if not handled with great caution. So far as we know that caution was always applied but we were and are uncomfortable with any person or organization getting involved in such procedures without being fully accountable for mental health risk management expectations when such procedures are used.  With the tools in the tool boxes of so many staff members with strong mental health credentials, we wonder what standards of professional care are being observed when their employer wants to deny that it is an institution serving mental health needs. 

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.  An appropriately run mental health environment never takes any action except in the interest of the client/ patient/ student. 

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 had every right to 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, they were 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 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 do 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. 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 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.)  We are also concerned that Carlbrook might consider that it has greater latitude than we suggest because they do not claim to be a mental health environment.  We point to the duck analogy cited above.

We have a further concern regarding the choices that have been made in addressing addiction related issues.  The relationship between Carlbrook and Duke University (in particular with Dr. Georgi of the Duke University faculty) 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. 

Our greatest concern 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 Dr. 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.

We will be adding an article on Substance Abuse and Addictions in our section  “Topics of Interest.”  When we have done that, we will suggest additional concerns about Carlbrook’s approach to substance abuse issues, which will be further explained in our future offerings in “topics of Interest.” In that article we will look at the relevance of twelve step fellowships as a future support system -- a complex issue we will not attempt to address in detail in this space.

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 Dr. 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, so that highly responsible and well informed policymakers might choose not to use twelve-step work in situations in which we would advocate its use. We do not encourage its use for all people with substance abuse history.  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 Dr. 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. 

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.  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.

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; we object to marathon sessions that interfere with normal sleeping, eating, and personal hygiene patterns). 

We advise that parents check that out before enrolling their son or daughter.  The role model for Carlbrook being the defunct Cascade School, we think that calls for close attention.  In the prosperous days at Cascade, it was strongly influenced by the "emotional growth" processes of the 1980s.  We hope that Carlbrook has not copied that aspect of Cascade, but we simply do not know.  We do know they offer more in the way of clinical support, although they sometimes want to disguise that fact.

Our conclusion is that  Carlbrook  offers enough that is truly outstanding that 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. 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 they are resistant to discussing.  We respect the quality but add a note of caution.   We are frankly more concerned about the resistance to discussion than about matters themselves that we perceive to be flaws.  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 hope for a response from Carlbrook that we can print.  We would also welcome an alternative view from one or more other referring professionals who do not share our reservations and concerns. 

Note: We consistently make some attempt to advise schools and programs of our concerns before publishing comments they might not find entirely supportive and generally provide a draft of our review before publishing it, so they can post a response as soon as we publish the review.  Carlbrook has not responded to our concerns about some the matters we see as possibly problematic.  Therefore the review was not shared in advance.

Official web site of Carlbrook School

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. 

Created 7/11-2010 from copy last updated 5-18-2010; Counter added July 13, 2010; Changes to bold italics on 9-3-2010.  Main text remains faithful to text as it was on 5-18-2010, errors and all.