(d) Academic/clinical substantiation of methods and practices      .  .  .

(e)  Sophisticated recovery maintenance program for applicable students     .  .  .

(f)  Experienced and well-qualified staff     .  .  .

(g) Creation of a unique and effective management structure      .  .  .

(h) Increased normalization of experience     .  .  .

(i) Extensive transition services and alumni support     .  .  .

FamilyLight comments: 

Our point in the original review that we are retaining in the text (after receiving and studying the Carlbrook response) is that Carlbrook has been heavily influenced by the Cascade School, not necessarily by emotional growth schools in general.   Our reference to emotional growth in the original text that could be misleading has been removed.  We applaud the listed add-ons that Carlbrook has committed to.  We have never failed to note those improvements over Cascade, although the Carlbrook reply includes more detail.

Whether Carlbrook and Cascade are  similar or different is all a matter of perspective.  Are a Lexus and an Infiniti similar?  Both are luxury cars from companies based in Japan.  But they have somewhat different styling.  Are they the same. No. They each have four wheels, an engine, as steering wheel and styling to reduce wind resistance. However they are different enough in appearance to be easy to tell apart.  It is clear that the founders of Carlbrook School had Cascade in mind as they designed Carlbrook, whether they copied Cascade on any particular point or decided to do something opposite. We would have preferred a zero based design that did include the features specifically listed.

To Cascade's credit, they made a claim similar to Carlbrook's about having an academic offering superior to other schools and seemed to deliver that. We don't see a real difference there, although we do see that as a point of quality for both schools. 

The text we left visible from item (b)  above confused us a bit compared to Carlbrook's own website.    We had always understood that Carlbrook was doing, to its credit, was at least as focused as what they report in item (b), but when we look at what Carlbrook advertises, they claim to operate grades 9 thru 12.  Ninth graders, even if academically behind their chronological age peers are not "on the verge of college admission."  We applaud what Carlbrook claims in this paragraph; we wonder why their website seems to say something different.

We have believed, in the past that Carlbrook's intended population.  We think the wilderness pre-requisite for admission defines it even more, and we comment on that below.

We appreciate this response which addresses some of our concerns with regard to similarity to Cascade School, but not all of them. 

(Back to top)

Response to Concern #2

FamilyLight Comments:  for the sake of clarity, we will include our comments interspersed with Carlbrook's text. 

In his recent review of Carlbrook School, Tom argues that terminology matters with regards to how the school defines itself. We could not agree more (although for very different reasons, as outlined below). While the import that the review places on such terminology is somewhat baffling to us, particularly given the fact that Carlbrook School has represented itself in a coherent and consistent manner since its inception almost nine years ago, we welcome the opportunity to address this issue and explore the reasoning behind our choice of self-description.

From the time of the school’s founding, there have existed three primary reasons that the school does not to describe itself as a “therapeutic boarding school.” These are:

(a)  To describe ourselves and the work we do in the most accurate manner possible;
(b)  To avoid unnecessary labeling or inappropriate generalization of our students; and
(c)  To provide our students and their families with a measure of privacy and discretion.

FamilyLight Comments: We find this explanation frankly confusing.

First, sometimes Carlbrook does describe itself as a therapeutic boarding school under certain circumstances.  We think it might depend upon what the Carlbrook  representative thinks the person they are addressing wants to hear.  As we understand it, recently an intern working in the office of an educational consultant, called Carlbrook admission on her own time to gain information about Carlbrook for a student of interest to her, not a client of the firm where she is interning.  This was not a decoy call.  The person she called about is genuine and there is/was a genuine interest, in part motivated by our compliments for the quality of the "advising staff." 

The interesting thing is that in this call the Carlbrook representative described Carlbrook as a therapeutic school and went on to describe the clinical power of the "advising" staff.  We wonder whether the answer to the same question would have been the same if the caller had spoken of the desire for the student to receive counseling but to be in a "regular" boarding school so as not to bear the "stigma" of a therapeutic school. 

Points (a), (b), and (c) above are also confusing.  On the one hand it appears from (a) and much of what follows below that  Carlbrook has been totally transparent about who it serves and what it does.

 However,   (b) is a red herring at least as applied to the word "generalization" above.  [With respect to "labeling,"  see comments on item (c)].  Schools which offer the kinds of therapeutic and clinical services that Carlbrook claims repeatedly in its response to us but are not sufficiently clinically intense to be considered either treatment centers or hospitals are therapeutic schools.  That is what "therapeutic school" means. 

States like Utah which have sophisticated regulation of schools and programs of this broad category (which Virginia does not)  require such schools to be licensed specifically as "therapeutic schools" if not as residential treatment centers.  With the intensity of the therapeutic services claimed in this response, we are not sure which category would apply if Carlbrook were in Utah. But they certainly would not be able to operate simply as an educational boarding school.  

As to item (c), if Carlbrook intends to be as transparent as they suggest in (a), and considering what we are saying in (b) then it is hard to understand what the alleged "privacy and discretion" consists in.   If they are being as transparent as (a) implies, then all of the relevant facts are being revealed in public, then what on earth are they holding back except specifically that transparently applies in common English, and according to law in a some states?  See also note below on transparency.

Back to Carlbrook's language:

We will examine each of these in turn.

Looking broadly at the spectrum of adolescent placement, there have long been both traditional boarding schools as well as residential mental health facilities, models which have both proven to be effective with appropriate populations. However, many students fall somewhere between these two extremes - students whose needs exceed those available in traditional academic environments but that fall short of placement in a mental health facility. Carlbrook School was specifically created to work with those students that fall within this middle ground, i.e., adolescents that need a safe and structured academic environment with individual and family counseling but whose personal struggles fall far short of requiring residence in a mental health facility.

FamilyLight:  What Carlbrook describes in the paragraph above is exactly what a therapeutic boarding school is. Carlbrook is unique in many ways that are to its credit but it is not by any means unique in choosing the aforementioned "middle ground."  To our knowledge Carlbrook is the only school occupying that middle ground that eschews the term "therapeutic boarding school." 

Due to the inherent dangers of misrepresentation, we too believe that accuracy of self-definition for such a non-traditional educational institution is essential; however, while it is certainly true that the school promotes its counseling faculty and services - which we believe to be some of the most sophisticated and effective of any secondary institution in the country - 

Familylight:

There is a major distinction that Carlbrook appears to be attempting to deny between what they are and what are purely academic boarding schools that happen to have some clinicians meeting students on campus.  The academic boarding schools to which Carlbrook appears to be referring in some cases give office space to mental health clinicians -- or might even employ them -- to meet with a limited number of students who have specific needs that are not typical of the school's population as a whole.   Frequent or consistent meetings between these mental health clinicians and students tend to be an extra cost option if the school is even a party to the business arrangement. Generally their work is confidential from the rest of the school and school officials are not able to access any more than the fact that the student met with the particular clinician.  In the schools to which Carlbrook appears to be comparing itself, student interaction with such professionals tends to be incidental to the customary operation of the school. At Carlbrook it appears to be central to the operation of the school and typical student interaction with the school.  We strongly suspect that the work of the clinicians, who at Carlbrook are usually called "advisors." is largely integrated with other efforts of the school.  We don't dispute that this is appropriate; we are merely pointing out the distinction between Carlbrook and conventional boarding schools and the similarity between Carlbrook and therapeutic schools. 

In the text from Carlbrook that immediately follows, we are not clear on what distinction is proposed as Carlbrook denies that it is a mental health facility.  If it means that only the individual clinicians are responsible and accountable for adherence to proper mental health standards, perhaps that is so, but then we don't think it is something to be proud of.  But when Carlbrooks reply to us so strongly emphasizes the substantial clinical credentials of so many of their staff and their integral functions in the operation of the school and lives of their students, then we are utterly confused as they deny that they are in any way a mental health facility. 

Immediately after that, Carlbrook claims that the "therapeutic boarding school" label is "unnecessarily narrow."  Again "therapeutic boarding school" is an extremely broad term.  Carlbrook has, according to its description, far more in the way of intensity in mental health resources integrated with the school than any other therapeutic boarding school we can think of at the moment except perhaps Montana Academy.  In the case of either Carlbrook or Montana Academy, we could understand a claim that these are at a higher level of mental health service than other therapeutic boarding schools.  But frankly we think that Carlbrook, to its credit, is documenting truly superior mental health services at the heart of its operation.  Which leaves us more convinced than ever, with all due apologies to Walt Whitman, that Carlbrook waddles and quacks like a therapeutic boarding school. 

 the fact remains that Carlbrook School is not a mental health facility and as such does not (and never will) represent itself as one.

As a school that embraces a holistic model of education, we simply felt (and continue to feel) that the “therapeutic boarding school” label is unnecessarily narrow in terms of describing the work that we do. In addition to its formal counseling regimen, the school also provides a safe and accepting campus environment, individualized attention and faculty support, and robust services in the areas of academics and the arts, life skills training, character education, interpersonal communication, health and wellness, post-secondary guidance, recovery maintenance and transition assistance. The Carlbrook program is thus inadequately defined by just its counseling services. Indeed, it was our intention in founding Carlbrook School to create something MORE than a “therapeutic boarding school,” something greater, something broader, something that spoke to not only the emotional well-being of its students but their social and intellectual health as well - the kind of program that could truly deliver on the school’s mission statement of preparing bright, underachieving students for college success.

FamilyLight: 

Let's  stop and think about this.  We fully and agree and endorse that claim and the fact Carlbrook  has many fine features that many other schools that call themselves therapeutic schools do not have.  A Yugo was a car, when they were made. Few people wanted to buy one once it was clear how badly they were made but it was a car.   A Rolls Royce is also a car. It has many fine features that a Yugo never had.  But the makers of Rolls Royce never denied that the Rolls Royce is a car just because it is better than a Yugo.  We don't understand the relevance of the above argument as to why Carlbrook is not a therapeutic school. We do understand why this is an argument as to why Carlbrook is better for some students than many therapeutic schools.  If Carlbrook is the Rolls Royce of schools with integrated therapy, and all that call themselves "therapeutic schools" are more like Yugos (a claim we would disagree with) it is not clear how that would make Carlbrook not a therapeutic school.

.   .   . 

It is also important to realize that every Carlbrook student is different and exceptional in his or her own way; as such, to define them with general descriptions such as “students with emotional and behavioral problems” – such as is often occurs with therapeutic boarding schools - is dangerously simplistic, as adolescents are enrolled at Carlbrook School for a wide variety of personal and familial reasons. For instance, while many Carlbrook students have engaged in substance abuse, this is certainly not an accurate characteristic of all of our students; this also holds true for disciplinary problems, oppositional behavior, social withdrawal, etc., as only certain percentage of students at any given time have a history of such behaviors.  

FamilyLight:

This is confusing.   In concern 2, item (b) Carlbrook made an issue of how narrow the focus of the school is. Here we are learning how diverse the population is. Which way is it? 

It should further be understood that even with the school’s desire to provide families with a measure of discretion, we have always been and continue to be clear and straightforward with all outside parties - including any secondary and post-secondary institutions to which our students apply - regarding the school’s unique mission and the type of students with whom we work (focusing specifically on those particular attributes that our students share). Such information is, in fact, readily available on the school’s website. We also maintain personal contact with a number of colleges (as do the referents with whom we work) and many of them have visited and toured the Carlbrook campus over the last five years. At the same time we should again emphasize that we view the principles of privacy and confidentiality as sacrosanct and as such do not offer or provide any specific information to outside persons or institutions that is not already in the public domain without the explicit approval of the affected family.

FamilyLight:

We totally agree about the importance of privacy and confidentiality.   If Carlbrook is as transparent with outsiders as they claim and as transparent as they appear to be, especially with colleges to whom their students might apply, it is not clear to us how students are protected by not calling Carlbrook a therapeutic school.  As to the note about accountability below, we do not dispute the specifics of accountability claimed immediately below.  However what is missing in the way this is stated below is that the management of the school is accountable for proper conduct in a mental health context.  The "counseling professionals"  (do we mean the "advisors?")  themselves as individuals appear to be accountable to those standards as described in the Carlbook paragraph that follows these FamilyLight comments, at least until we get to the context in which they function, but the accountability problem remains.

We do not have confidence, particularly after our experience cited in concern 3, that management feels bound by those standards.  In order to achieve what we believe are legitimate goals, we believe that the work of these counseling professionals is well integrated into the entire experience of Carlbrook School.  This means that to a large extent, the "counseling professionals" share information they gather from students in individual and group sessions, contribute to setting goals and strategies for each student applicable to their entire school experience (not just when meeting with the counseling professionals), and are guided by the school's overall goals and strategies when working with each student. If this is not the situation, we would be both surprised and disappointed. 

However if this is the situation, and the school as a whole does not hold itself accountable for the standards to which each "counseling professional" is accountable as Carlbrook claims in their paragraph following, then we question the adherence of  those "counseling professionals" to the standards of the organizations named.  In our experience cited in concern 3, we do not believe that the schools management was fully aligned with those standards.   We suspect that when the "counseling professionals" integrate their work so completely with others who are not accountable in the same places, they have a responsibility to these bodies to ensure that the total treatment of their counselee by the others meets the standards required of them.  In the case at issue in concern 3, we do not believe that occurred.

Specifically,  we are not satisfied that "all policies and practices [at Carlbrook] exceed" what NATSAP asks of its members, and we are not persuaded by the claim that follows about accountability of the individual "counseling professionals." To be satisfied on the latter point, we need to be satisfied that Carlbrook's management and all staff collaborating with the "counseling professionals" meet the same standards, at least in matters related to that collaboration. 

As a final note on this topic, we would also contest Tom’s assertion that the “therapeutic boarding school” label (or any similar means of self-description) leads to greater accountability, as evidenced by the questionable practices and techniques of several schools and programs that have wholeheartedly adopted this term; in fact, many of the abuses that have occurred within this field have been perpetrated by organizations that held themselves out as “therapeutic” or “emotional growth” in nature. As noted previously, while Carlbrook School has certainly been designed to work with a specific population of students and to provide such students with the guidance and support necessary for the cessation of negative and self-defeating behaviors and the promotion of intellectual and personal well-being, the fact remains that we are a school and not a mental health facility. To claim otherwise would be both inaccurate and irresponsible. Nevertheless, under no circumstances should this be used as an indictment of the school’s professional quality and standards, as the size and expertise of our counseling faculty is unassailable. Although we have chosen not to adopt the “therapeutic boarding school” label, it should be emphasized that our policies and practices exceed those delineated by NATSAP’s Standards of Good Practice, and our advisors and other counseling professionals operate at all times under the ethical guidelines of the APA, NASW and/or AAMFT as applicable. We are fully accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and operate under the guidelines of the Virginia Department of Education. We are also in full support of H.R. 911 (or any other similar legislation that seeks to protect student rights) as we are already in compliance with the primary requirements outlined in this proposed bill.

FamilyLight:  We reaffirm our concern on this topic.

(Back to top)

Response to Concern #3

With regards to Tom’s concerns about his client that was dismissed from Carlbrook, it appears that we simply disagree on the particulars of the case in question.  While we were each faced with an exceptionally challenging situation, we continue to feel that our actions were in the best interest of both his client and the school as a whole.  Our decision(s) regarding his client were not intended to be punitive (although we recognize how they could have been perceived this way), but rather were largely in response to feedback tendered from outside professionals working with the family at the time - which both Tom and the parents were aware of – that brought into question whether Carlbrook was the best environment for this person. We also had to take into account the safety of our other students as well. As a result of these considerations, the family was asked to move their child to a more structured facility and declined to follow that counsel. At that point we felt as though our hands were tied and dismissed the student.

FamilyLight:  While we have a substantially different recollection of the events at issue, we are not interested in quibbling over details of history.  We seek reason for confidence that Carlbrook would not handle a future event as we described this event.  So far, Carlbrook has not addressed that.  If Carlbrook chooses to claim they did not handle it as described in our review that time AND would not do so in the future, then we are moving in the right direction. 

In fairness to Carlbrook we want to acknowledge that in this situation they were faced with an extraordinarily difficult problem.   We think  most schools might have done something in this situation that might have been open to criticism in hindsight.  We simply want to know that Carlbrook sees the problem with the sequence of events we  describe and in the future would avoid doing what we perceive took place.  

Until Carlbrook can at least acknowledge that events as we describe them in our review are not as they would handle a future situation, we regretfully reaffirm our criticism.

(Back to top)

Response to Concern #4

The path that culminates in attendance at Carlbrook School is different for each student and each family; over the years, however, we have observed a growing number of students arriving with a history of alcohol, tobacco or drug use/abuse, which reflects national trends. Getting back on track after substance abuse not only requires a commitment to abstinence, it also requires learning about the underlying triggers for substance use and learning new strategies for living substance free.

Carlbrook School is committed to helping students and families heal from the deep wounds caused by adolescent substance abuse and to helping students learn to live substance free lives. While Carlbrook remains an alcohol, tobacco and drug free environment, our experience indicates that students who have a history of substance use/abuse encounter greater difficulty as they transition to secondary schools or colleges. We thus began collaborating in 2007 with the renowned Georgi Educational and Counseling Services (GECS) group in a determined effort to help students address problems with substance use and reclaim control over their health and well-being.

Although we have been exceptionally pleased with the results of these efforts (as we have been able to document both a measured improvement in student and parent satisfaction with our services as well as a significant reduction in substance abuse following graduation), there appears to remain a lack of understanding among some professionals as to the type and scope of services we provide. In the interest of addressing any misperceptions, please consider the following points:

●  Carlbrook is not a treatment center or mental health facility. It is a highly competitive boarding school helping to prepare intellectually gifted students, who have temporarily been derailed by a variety of life challenges, for a college education. When necessary, Carlbrook School has direct links to Duke University Medical Center and Carolinas Medical Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Through these two institutions, Carlbrook can provide access to the highest quality of medical care addressing both physical and mental concerns. Specialty services are made available from these institutions on a continuing basis in the areas of substance abuse treatment and eating disorders treatment both of which are programs nationally recognized for their excellence in research.

●  Following the available science Carlbrook School believes that academic excellence must be anchored by emotional/limbic development. Carlbrook utilizes a holistic approach to foster academic advancement and emotional development by taking into consideration the most current information about the developing adolescent brain as presented by Dr. Aaron White, one of the country's leading scientists in this area.

●  Carlbrook School utilizes nationally recognized experts in the field of substance abuse treatment to train their faculty and be available for advising and transition services (ATS) faculty on a consultant basis. Through this collaboration, Carlbrook is gradually developing a national network of therapists who are highly trained in both family systems and substance abuse issues.

●  Carlbrook School takes the history of substance use/abuse in its student population seriously and has in recent years instituted a series of substance-abuse specific interventions as part of its Recovery Maintenance program. As a result, we now believe that Carlbrook offers one of the most extensive substance abuse programs of any school in the country. *NOTE: For a more detailed overview of the school’s comprehensive substance abuse program, please see the attached description of services entitled “Molding Healthy Teen Brains at Carlbrook School.”

●  While Carlbrook does not offer institutional AA or NA meetings, the school has practiced 12-step facilitation as part of its recovery maintenance program since it was first introduced in 2006, thus integrating the concepts of 12-step work in its treatment approach. This not only "facilitates" the student’s broader understanding of 12-step programs but also "facilitates" their potential involvement in those programs after they leave Carlbrook. Such facilitation is considered a best practice guideline by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment in Washington, DC. However, any 12-step facilitation groups that are offered at Carlbrook School are not considered official AA or NA meetings because they are not run by one of their members.

●  As Tom correctly notes, many modern substance abuse experts recognize that the 12-step approach is not for everyone. While Carlbrook School utilizes 12-step facilitation it is sensitive to this understanding, and as such places its primary emphasis on a variety of other treatment interventions, most notably Motivational Enhancement Therapy. Carlbrook also utilizes the trans-theoretical model of change (Stages of Change) to help both family and students understand their experience and prepare themselves for the probable "bumps in the road" that are inherent in the change process.

Although we hope that this information serves to clarify the scope and quality of substance abuse related work we are doing at Carlbrook, the various members of our recovery maintenance team certainly welcome any feedback or additional questions that may arise.

FamilyLight: 

We are amending our review of Carlbrook School with respect to this issue.  While we continue to have some differences with Carlbrook on this point, those difference consist in advocacy for principles that very few schools or programs of any intensity currently adhere to.   As our revision of the review is completed the specifics of our differences will be exposed.  But we congratulate Carlbrook school on putting energy into a highly sophisticated  approach to this problem. 

(Back to top)

The successful completion of an initial wilderness experience (or equivalent evaluative program) is a prerequisite for admission to Carlbrook School. The purpose of this requirement has always been threefold: to properly evaluate all applicants; to provide affected students with a sense of personal accomplishment; and to ensure the safety of any students in crisis (when necessary).

.   .   .

By taking advantage of heightened student receptivity and placing them in an unfamiliar environment, replete with demonstrable cause and effect relationships, wilderness programs are highly effective in laying the foundation for enhanced self-esteem, increased student optimism, and energetic participation in subsequent personal development curricula. While short-term in scope, the advantages provided to families during this initial component can be significant. It affords Carlbrook and each family an opportunity to develop an understanding of the issues that may have been interfering with a student’s performance and to shape shared expectations for the scope and nature of the work ahead. Furthermore, Carlbrook is often able to utilize the wilderness therapist’s familiarity with a particular student and family to help determine a more effective course of action at the critical early stages of enrollment.

FamilyLight: 

We agree that an excellent evaluation is necessary before committing to a long term facility, such as Carlbrook.   However, the emphasis on getting that evaluation in wilderness does not appear to us to fit with the description Carlbrook provided as to the population they are trying to attract.    .  .  .   The words chosen are "bright students who are chronologically on the verge of college admission and struggling in the academic mainstream."  The students meeting that description for whom wilderness is a reasonable parental investment is a fairly small percentage.

In adhering to the wilderness requirement do they mean a therapeutic wilderness program or do they mean to include such programs as NOLS and Outward Bound?  If Carlbrook means to include the latter, then they cannot really be serious about the evaluation piece.  If they don't mean to include students from those programs, then they are really narrowing to students who come from therapeutic wilderness programs.  (Yes, we have noted the occasional exceptions for evaluation programs and RTCs)

We acknowledge that we are more conservative about recommending wilderness than many other educational consultants.  However, we highly doubt that the even those consultants most likely to refer to wildness on the most limited indications would agree that the language Carlbrook chose in this venue defines a population that is in almost every case would be  well served by a wilderness program.   While we realize that in 2010 wilderness programs have progressed and diversified  from where they started, but all we are aware of still target young people with significant behavioral and/or addiction issues.  We think that either Carlbrook's  requirement for wilderness is simply inappropriate or Carlbrook's target population is different from what they say, more in line with the traditional population targeted by therapeutic schools and/or the emotional growth schools of yore -- or both. 

Therefore we are a bit confused by and uncertain about the paragraphs that follow.  Does Carlbrook serve a narrowly defined focused population or doesn't it and if so, what is the focus?

 While we would disagree as to the existence at Carlbrook of an institutional “mind-set that is focused on oppositional behavior”, or the conclusions that such a “mind-set” would seem to imply, it would certainly be accurate to state that a reasonable percentage of our entering students have previously exhibited behavior that could be viewed in some way as “oppositional.” While such external manifestations of internal turmoil vary quite significantly, and can be as mild as increased family conflict or personal disengagement or as severe as regular substance use or disciplinary problems at school, it should be noted that such determination is not always readily apparent and that student safety is paramount in all instances.

Just as importantly, it should be emphasized that Carlbrook School has worked with literally hundreds of adolescents who did not present as oppositional, including many older students who personally chose to enroll at the school. As such, it is simply inaccurate to classify Carlbrook as being an inappropriate placement for non-oppositional adolescents, particularly when based on nothing more than the school’s wilderness experience requirement. It should further be noted that in addition to wilderness programs, Carlbrook will also accept students from other primary evaluative environments (such as residential treatment centers, short-term inpatient facilities, etc.) and has done so on several occasions.

FamilyLight:  We reaffirm our concern on this topic.

The final issue raised in the review involved the school’s use of “workshops” as a counseling forum. As a professional organization that works with and advocates for struggling adolescents, Carlbrook shares Tom’s concerns as to some of the practices and techniques that have been (and likely continue to be) employed by unscrupulous and/or less sophisticated schools and programs. Thus we feel it is critical that we are explicit in differentiating our work from that of others.

Workshops at Carlbrook School are multiple-day thematic conferences based on the school’s ten core values – honesty, integrity, friendship, compassion, courage, vivacity, understanding, perseverance, respect and honor. Serving as milestones for each student’s personal development, they are designed to offer students the potential for personal growth and awareness through careful and thoughtful inquiry of key aspects of individual character. Each of the workshops is associated with a particular phase of the program, and each represents a logical extension of prior accomplishments, with extensive preparation and follow-up conducted in a series of traditional group therapy sessions.

While the workshops at Carlbrook certainly have some similarities to workshops or seminars being conducted at other schools and programs (particularly with regards to the terminology employed and the various themes being explored), it should be emphasized that our workshops were purposely designed at the outset to address areas of deficiency and/or concern in prior models – in other words, to retain the positive and productive elements of such experiences while eliminating any practice that was of questionable value or that was not validated by current research. As such, it can be stated unequivocally that Carlbrook School does not and has never engaged in any of the workshop-related actions that have raised concerns at other schools and programs – including marathon sessions, sleep deprivation, abusive or humiliating techniques, etc. In fact, such dubious and potentially harmful activities are some of the many things that Carlbrook was founded in reaction to and has always sought to combat.

Furthermore, unlike the workshops currently being conducted at other schools and programs, the workshops at Carlbrook enjoy design and staff oversight by not only our own counseling team but also a psychiatrist and other mental health specialists from Duke University Medical Center. All material and modalities employed in such workshops are substantiated academically and/or clinically and are continually refined as new research emerges. Our workshops take place during regular campus hours and do not interfere with normal sleeping, eating, or personal hygiene patterns. All participants are given frequent breaks between group sessions as well as detailed explanations as to the purpose and objectives of each discussion or exercise. Every Carlbrook parent is also provided with such information, and components of the school’s workshops that are particularly relevant to family dynamics are incorporated into our quarterly parent conferences. Lastly, as with all counseling activities at Carlbrook School, workshop facilitators are experienced and specially-trained master’s level counselors.

As a final note regarding workshops, we must admit that we were a bit disappointed as to how this concern was raised in the initial review. While we remain confident that Tom intended no bias or negative connotation, we feel strongly that the mention of or reference to a disgraced program such as Mt. Bachelor Academy in a review of an unaffiliated school such as ours is potentially prejudicial and inflammatory, particularly to the casual or less observant reader. Any assumptions of similarity between the quality of services provided by these two very different schools are simply unwarranted and unjustified.

FamilyLight apologizes if it appears that we were accusing Carlbrook of abusing students in a manner consistent with published reports of allegations against Mount Bachelor Academy. As we revise the review based upon the response from Carlbrook, we will take care to ensure language reasonably interpreted in that way is removed and/or neutralized.   We appreciate this clarification of Carlbrook's policies and practices with respect to Workshops. 

Indeed, it could be argued that the very fact that our workshops would be automatically equated (or even compared) with those being conducted by less reputable and/or experienced programs, based on nothing other than what we call them, is yet another example of how terminology does matter (see our response above to Concern #2).

In summary, we hope that this response addresses Tom’s enumerated concerns in a way that he feels is specific and sufficient; if not, we would be more than willing to elaborate further. We will be the first to admit that Carlbrook is certainly not perfect, and we must continue to be vigilant in our organizational efforts toward consistent evaluation and continual improvement. Nevertheless, at the risk of sounding immodest, we are exceptionally proud of the school’s faculty and the work that they have done with more than 600 families over the past nine years. We at Carlbrook have always measured our performance by our students’ accomplishments, both in college and beyond, and we never cease to be amazed by the breadth of their intellect and the depth of their compassion.

As neither Tom nor any of his associates have visited Carlbrook School in the last eight years, we would encourage them to do so sometime the near future, as we believe that seeing the school first-hand would likely help alleviate many of the concerns outlined in Tom’s recent review. In the final analysis, however, we feel that it is likely that some of Tom’s concerns may simply be situations in which we “agree to disagree” - something that is exceptionally common among conscientious professionals in the fields of education and human services. Nevertheless, as is the case with all of our current and past referents, we respect his views and appreciate his feedback.

FamilyLight:  This is Tom Croke responding personally.  I had hoped to avoid reference to lack of communication with Carlbrook and how that occurred, now that Carlbrook is engaging in a dialog with us, open to public view.  I personally appreciate this response as do my associates here at FamilyLight.  While I have some questions of detail to address with Carlbrook on the topic of workshops, this communication is reassuring about their workshops, and directly responds to our concerns about workshops, initially posed as questions, not accusations.

In the larger picture, regarding other concerns about the school, we think this communication is a giant step forward.  While there may always be points on which we need to agree to disagree, we believe our differences will decline in both scope and importance as our dialog continues. 

I do want to address Carlbrook's concern that we have not visited the school in a number of years. Like most educational consultants, we believe that visits to schools and programs are an important tool in learning about a school or program and deciding whether or not to refer a particular student.  Unlike many of our colleagues, we don't think it is a stand-alone method.  Those visits tend to be orchestrated on the schools terms.  Increasingly, we rely on responses to questions we put to the schools and programs before deciding whether or not to visit, which we can ask  on our terms.  In addition, we put much greater reliance on what we learn as we monitor the progress of students we do refer than we put on what happens in a visit to the school that is orchestrated very much on the school's terms.

In the early years of Carlbrook, we made several referrals.  In at least two cases we had very strong complaints from parents that were, to some degree, a reflection on our judgment for having made the referral. One of those was the student situation under discussion in concern 3 and in our review.  Following those events we sought out presentations about Carlbrook at conferences, followed their promotional literature and website, heard from other consultants about Carlbook, and, most importantly, asked (both by phone and email) direct questions of Carlbrook, addressed to Grant Price , Jeffrey Georgi and Kelly Dunbar.  In almost every case our inquiries were simply ignored.  In one case, Kelly Dunbar promised to respond but did not.  In another case I was told I would need to go to the campus if I wanted m questions answered. 

Since it is our policy to expect responses to our inquiries before investing in a visit, and since experience with students referred -- our principal indicator of what is really happening in a school -- was less than satisfactory, I saw no reason to invest in a school visit. This continued until spring of 2010 when our review of Carlbrook on the web was getting a great deal of notice.  I believe  that you see in this dialog moves us forward.  I want to have some additional dialog, at least some of which might not be made public, before proceeding to invest in a visit, but we are moving closer.

This dialog is what we want to see more of on this website. Everybody learns when alternative points of view are aired respectfully.  I thank Carlbrook for helping us to set the example. 

Carlbrook does many things with superior excellence.  This seems to be a case of getting most of the hard stuff right and then messing up on what should be easy.   I thank Carlbrook for its time in responding to us and for its innovations that lead to better services for all.  We hope to clear up the "small stuff." 

Tom Croke

(Back to top)

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  9-13-2010