WTF? Assesing 2 year olds for special needs

[TheRealMBJ]

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8618476/Two-year-olds-to-be-given-compulsory-education-checks.html

Surely this is too young to 'label' a child as special needs and certain SN (like the Autistic spectrum) cannot even be diagnosed until 3. This seems like a step backwards to me.so much for criticism of labour's 'Nappy curriculum'

But not every parent will know if their child isn't developing normally - there are plenty who will not recognise, it being their first child, or not know through ignorance or other reasons. The child then wouldn't be spotted until they started attending school.

And we didn't have a 2-year-check either, they aren't universal, and wouldn't pick up on things like ASD anyway.

Following on from everyone's comments and experience OP, do you still think the proposed screening is wrong?

Yes screening will be great for all the NT children and it will work for non NT children only if the concerns of a parent are noted at that check and an appropriate referral made at that time which is what you would hope would happen. However in reality most likely the professionals won't pick up on the subtleties and a parents concerns will be dismissed or they will be advised to wait and see much the same as they are now.

Also, there are a lot of parents that dont want to see a problem so just ignore it.

"Yes, bullet another poster has already pointed ot my mistake and I'm sorry . I was sprouting misinformation."

Ok. Sorry for snapping at you.

My DS was dx with ASD at 2.9 and even that was too late IMO and utterly dependant on me having pages of evidence at the long-awaited Paed appointment where I described him being impaired in every area of the triad including sensory.

I had previously endured a HV "check" at 24 months during which I had to mention DS' lack of eye-contact to a HV who had severe wandering eyes ie going in opposite directions. It was very uncomfortable. She saw nothing wrong so that delayed things further.

No, not if done properly, but if implemented as proposed, I still think it lacking and will do more harm than good. Either because of inconsistency in administering it, lack of intervention, the assumption that it was done at 2 and fine or all of it.

I'm just very sceptical about it all. But I do appreciate that I am coming from a point of absolute ignorance, so am I'll qualified to have an opinion.

This thread is definitely giving me food for thought though (particularly as to whether DS is NT.)

It's an interesting one, isn't it?

We were talking in the SN section about a drug's side effects, and listed in the side effects is 'epilepsy'. Alarming, if you don't realise that many children who need that drug, are children who are at a high risk of developing epilepsy anyway.

It reminds me of this thread. Will children be flagged more? Probably! Because we know that many children are missed by the system as it is. That doesn't mean that more children will have SN at 2. Just that more SN will be identified or flagged at that age, instead of, say, school age.

-I first raised 'PFB' concerns with my HV when DD1 was 8 months old, about her babbling and sound responses being 'odd'.

-I then raised concern at 15 months when she didn't seem to be able to pull to stand, despite wanting to and trying to.

-I went back at 17 months because she was standing, but turning her leg out to the side, and not making progress.
-Physio saw her, declared her simply 'late' but fine. She was discharged at 20 months. She finally walked at 23 months.

I was having to take a stairgate with me when I visited a friend. To stop DD1 escaping up the stairs and destroying the house.

Roll on 7 months, she starts pre-school. Within 6 weeks, I was approached and DD1 was assessed. She needed 1:1, they said.

4 weeks later, she was falling over for no reason. Fast-track to the hospital, and she had investigations which revealed Epilepsy, Global Development Delay, and, later, a brain malformation.

DD1 is now in Special School, doing well. But in mainstream, she had around 6 very haphazard, very ineffective SALT sessions, in almost 2 years.

Would she have been 'mainstreamable' if picked up earlier? I doubt it, tbh. BUT, if she had been identified earlier, I would have had the opportunity to become an expert earlier.

Now, she is 5.5, and we are JUST getting a Core Assessment for support from Social Services. I applied for one when she was 3.4, but because her 'flagging' was so recent, and she didn't have a neat diagnosis, we were refused.

I would walk over hot coals to have gained those months back, which were lost with being fobbed off because DD1 was my first, and I was being 'neurotic'.

Now, at 5.5, she is still globally delayed, except they call it 'Learning Disability' once they get out of the fluffy toddler years. She is still a toddler, in a girl's body.

This has been so, so useful to me. If only to sort out what it is that really bothers me about this whole thing.

Thank you everyone for being so patient with me.

I suppose, one of my worries is that this is just another 'lip-service' initiative, and that I'm not convinced that it would pick up anymore cases, but will increase anxiety amongst parents. I'm trying to sort this out in my own mind, but surely, if it were implemented correctly and assessments done by knowledgable, trained individuals it would be of value. But it wouldn't just be as simple as looking at a CHAT test (thanks for the info silverfrog) as the assessment would have to be for a broad range of SNs.

And as you all have said, even with some training HVs and GPs are pretty useless at picking things up early, so it would have to be done by professionals specifically trained in childhood development, which would be expensive.

I don't know, I'm rambling... But I am learning. Thank you.

I have had similar experience with my eldest as silverfrog and Lougle. I was asking for help for ages and I kept being fobbed off by HVs and GPs who thought he would grow out of it and I was being a precious first timer. Like silverfrog, I once had a HV count the words he was saying in a sentence and saying how good that was for his age and I was being silly. The sentence in question was a nursery rhyme he'd memorized, memorized speech was all he had at that time. Even to this day it's very ineffective, haphazard, and delayed. They do random assessment after assessment, but never get around to the actual help. Like you OP, I worry that this is just more lip service.

I now have a six year old whose speech is worse than his four year old sister, and has melt downs like a toddler. Like Lougle, I have a toddler in a boy's body and much of this could have been avoided if we'd gotten proper help earlier. Now I have to work harder to pick up and put together pieces as they fall.

but the CHAT test would pick up an awful lot of the children with additional needs, as social communication skills often lag behind across all SN.

and the CHAT is easy, quick and simple to administer. no special training needed - a tick list, with a second sheet explaining which points cause concern if not "passed"

this should then be enough to get referral to a developmental team, as it indicates delays which warrant investigation (whatever the cause of those delays may be).

I would much rather this was done, then faffing about with a made-up list which may only serve to confuse if not properly administered (and am thinking of dd2 when I say I would rathr this was done - so thinking about a (apparently) NT child)

the main thing to take form this is what Lougle said - I don't think any check administered across the board woudl pick up any extra children with additional needs, but I do think it woudl pick up some that are currently being overlooked - whether down to incompetent professionals, or parents in denial there are lots of children with delays who go unnoticed until school age, and this is unacceptable.

My DS was 13.5 when he finally received a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome. He endured years and years of bullying at school. My concerns were treated with total contempt by teachers and health practitioners alike. At 15 he has been damaged beyond repair and will never get his childhood back. I fear greatly for his future.

MrsFlittersnoop and . if this early assessment helps children like your DS then it's a great idea. But if it is something that isn't done properly but used as a fall-back. As in, when a parent raises concern, 'Oh, but he was assessed at 2 and nothing was is wrong', then surely it is worse?

Has anyone with any knowledge of the subject had a look at the actual proposal? Do you think it will be any good?

hey, how are you, swc?

hope all going well. it never rains but it pours here - having all sorts of shit re: dd1, but we'll get it sorted (no choice really...)

"But if it is something that isn't done properly but used as a fall-back. As in, when a parent raises concern, 'Oh, but he was assessed at 2 and nothing was is wrong', then surely it is worse?"

The thing with SN, is that often, a child whose special needs are overlooked will cope at first. But, eventually, they will crumble, and the strain of coping without necessary adaptation is too much. That may be at 4, 8, 14, but it WILL happen.

The result of that is simply lost years, and lost hope.

Bringing it down to it's most basic form:

If a child is investigated for potential SN, and found to be NT, what harm is done?

If a child is overlooked, imagine the harm that is done.

I've only skimmed the thread but I have to tell you I was shouting at the woman advocating this on the radio this morning: she thought it could be piggybacked onto the "usual" HV check. If I hadn't been moving house today therefore busy I'd have been straight on the email to tell her/the today prog that actually we have no HV checks past 2 months here, because of the cutbacks. Sigh.
/highjack

I'm a parent to a kid with language delay and ASD traits. I am all for early developmental checks. I was fobbed off twice, losing 9 months of DS's development in effect before being taken seriously. Even if the early intervention remains as variable in availability and quality as currently, at least it should get kids onto the waitling lists that bit earlier, and it gives parents a chance to do some research and try some self-help, and possibly look for private therapies to plug the gap.

BUT - I am uncomfortable 1)with the idea of any of the format being discretionary, rather than standardised like CHAT and 2)with it being childcarers lumbered it with, I don't think it's fair to expect them to be gatekeepers to diagnosis.

One of the proposals under the new SEN green paper is to bring back the 2 year check. Whether that will happen in principle is another matter though.

Dd is proof positive that early recognition and early intervention works. I had a GP who referred at my first concerns, a paed who referred for a multi disciplinary assessment at seventeen months and referred to the education department at the earliest opportunity and an Early Years teacher who pushed for statutory assessment before she even entered pre school. She is unrecognisable from the diagnosis letter and her future is bright. It can be done with the right professionals prepared to have the courage of their convictions.

My DS1 was diagnosed with ASD and glabal developmental delay aged 2 years 5 months, thanks to a wonderful HV and a community nursery nurse with years of SN experience he was statemented and had an awful lot of intervention and support in place within 2 months of the dx. I was extremely lucky back then to have such fantastic professionals on my side who really battled on my behalf, having since worked in disability services, I know my story is extremely rare.

Unfortunately, this level of support did not continue when my DS turned 5 and was no longer under the care of these people and for the past four years I've had to scream, shout and fight for every tiny bit of help and support we've received.

I would like to think that early diagnosis would mean that many families get the level of intervention that we had in the early days. Whether it does or not remains to be seen, but I live in hope.

I think this says what I've been thinking a lot better.

oh that's an excellent blog commentary MBJ, thanks for linking, I thoroughly agree.

Thanks for linking to my blog, MBJ. I do agree with you - I think that the proposed changes are ill thought out. While in priniciple they are great, who really believes that they will lead to intervention when a child needs it?

I don't object to the "labelling" of a child, if it helps the parent get the support that the child needs. But I don't see how a half-hearted proposal will actually do much good, while all the cuts are going on.

It is really sad to read the stories of posters whose concerns were dismissed for so long. These children could have been assisted far earlier if HCP took their parents seriously.

MBJ - my DS2 was diagnosed with autism when he was just turned 2. He was referred at 21 months because it was obvious something wasn't right. Because of this, he was already receiving some extra help by his second birthday. Early intervention is extremely important for children with additional needs. Do you have a problem with that?