ABA and 'recovery' - is it possible?

[RockinSockBunnies]

So, having read Catherine Maurice's 'Let me Hear Your Voice', I was wondering whether, aside from her book, anyone was aware of children who have been wholly recovered from autism through ABA?

The book is great, very inspiring and has a happy ending. Obviously though, no-one knows what has happened subsequently to the children. Are they NT adults? Do they have any residual autistic traits?

Are there any other experiences of ABA being used an actual 'cure'?

Does anyone have any positive ABA stories where ABA has been started at a later age (e.g. eight years old) as opposed to earlier? We're only now in the position where we can begin ABA and I'm hoping it can still have an effect.

Pipin that's insane.

What staggers me about these inaccurate (no, make that blatant lies) told about ABA us that people who know nothing about it, dismiss a science on the basis of some hearsay or half understood stuff done years ago.
They then use that to dismiss it all.

It makes no sense. It's a bit like slagging off special schools because once, back in 1975, a teacher in one in Dayton Ohio, smacked someoner.
Or having no truck with butcher's chops because one in Leicester once left putrid mince in a sink.

Barking.

Vigorous debate is the very stuff of a democracy and if an LEA has a good reason to oppose ABA, it has to be an informed one.

However, that won't ever happen because once you are informed about ABA, you just can't oppose it because it makes perfect sense, both as a science and, instinctively.

If I were a parent and had an LEA/NHS bod telling me ABA was no good, my first move woudl be to write to them, reiterating their statement and asking them on what grounds they had made such a comment in view of the necessity of a culture of evidence based practice.

I'd accept no less than an MSc or a PhD in ABA or the qualification of BCBA (board certfied BA) or BCaBA (board certified associate BA).

If they haven't got that, you are perfectly in your right to dismiss their ill-founded
views out of hand.

It's only a matter of time before BAs are accepted by the Health Professional Councils and as I have pointed out repeated, ewven the Royal College of SLTs endorse its use (admittedly in a paper that has many flaws but still.... If you want to find this, look up Planning and Commissioning Document for ASD from RCSLT)

The Scottish Government have, under the pressure of an infgormed parent, removed an inaccurate and derogatory section on ABA from their Autism Toolkit.

This stuff will be mainstream in the next 10 years. That I can guarantee as the scales fall from people's eyes re current dismal 'eclectic' provision.

Remember also that ABA only costs because it does not exist within a statutory framework. Ask your LEA how much all the sensory rooms, and intensive interaction and sensory integration and music therapy cost, stuff for which there is barely a shred of evidence.

Sickof, haven't forgotten my promise to pass that stuff onto you but still on holiday, hence delay.

I agree SWCX.It's outrageous that people get away with talking bollocks.
Electra, the point is that current provision requires a vast number of staff anyway. I know many people with 1:1 and 2:1 support, shored up further by a raft of different professionals, none of whose advise and intervention meshes effectively.

The models we use cost no more than bog standard ones.
I agree re money though-that's what talks ultimately so my overall goal (and that of countless other fab people I work with ) is to show it is cost effecxtive.

Do you have any idea btw how much all these out of country placements in 24/7 schools cost when kids' behaviours get to much for their families and regular special schools??? Hundreds of thousands. This is funded by us, the taxpayer and most (all?) of these schools are private businesses, the owners of which rake it in.

Provision generally worse in my view as they are even more heavily staffed and getting effective training and an overall policy in place with so masny people nigh on impossible.

Most are just holding pens.

completely agree, Star.

my stress also dropped, as finally, I could see that we were doing somehting for dd1 - her stress dropped, and so, naturally, mine did as well.

the expectations thing is so true - the number of times dd1 has been written off (pre ABA) . we have been told she wouldn't talk, then she wouldn't talk at school, then that maybe she owuld never learn at school, and always be more comfortbale at home .

Have also been told that everythign she ever learns from ABA she will only ever be able ot do at a table top (not if that is not where she learns it ), and that it would create a little robot - only ale to carry out tasks under instruction (even back beofre I started ABA I used to just think, "well, at least that is better than ot carrying out tasks at all")

and I'm another that would say that my marriage would definitely be in tatters now if we hadn't ABA'd. the stress of fighting everyone, all the time, to try to make them see what and who dd1 is, and what she can achieve was enormous, and all-consuming. it didn't leave any time for anythig else, unless it was yet another heated discussion about how dd1 was being failed. not a gret way to live, really.

post ABA, we lead a near-normal life. we travel the world, eat in restaurants, do normal family stuff that just was not possible before we started.

Yes, I think I've said this before but the idea that ABA is disruptive for the family is insane. Because it has to be weighed up against the horrors of the alternative! An alternative which would have left us with a tantrumming, non-communicative ball of frustration that would have decimated all our lives, his included. We wouldn't have been able to leave the house with him, and our lives within the house would have been intolerable.

And as Silver said, I was prepared to take the risk of a child who spoke robotically over a child who could do no more than mutely hand me a picture card. If I was lucky

Bollocks to them

Yes, I think I've said this before but the idea that ABA is disruptive for the family is insane. Because it has to be weighed up against the horrors of the alternative! An alternative which would have left us with a tantrumming, non-communicative ball of frustration that would have decimated all our lives, his included. We wouldn't have been able to leave the house with him, and our lives within the house would have been intolerable.

And as Silver said, I was prepared to take the risk of a child who spoke robotically over a child who could do no more than mutely hand me a picture card. If I was lucky

Bollocks to them

Yes, that whole 'only do it in certain circumstances' always got me (not that I hasten to add, anyone has said it to me.)

Eh??? So is it better to spend your day flopping about the 'sensory room' then or having you hand forced into position to 'draw' while you stare into the distance???

Pathetic straw man arguments.

Never forget, SN is an industry, an industry that employs a lot of people whose jobs depend on things remaining the same.

I have come to the conclusion that most people in it, however kind, gentle and hard working, really don't expect children to change.

That hit me like a juggernaut even more so because I realise I used to be one of them, before I learnt about ABA.

"Never forget, SN is an industry, an industry that employs a lot of people whose jobs depend on things remaining the same."

Gosh that's so true, it's terrifying. I do think that there needs to be a operating system level change to 'All children can learn' from 'Children can't learn if they come into our system, that's why they are here and our job is to get the parents to accept that'

Yes, ok for them to earn a good salary but not alright for others as not part of the 'establishment'.

I live by the words of one of my ABA heroes, the wonderful Michael Maloney.

'If the child hasn't learnt, the teacher/therapist hasn't taught'

That's it.
End of.

Just remembered what I was told at a TEACCH school I went to visit...that it would be 'unfair' to my son to provide him with 1:1 help as then he would be being 'policed'. She said it with a straight face and everything.

I had a really interesting chat today with our brilliant pro-ABA SALT who has recently assessed ds (and who will be writing her SA2 report soon for our statement) - the conversation was this thread almost verbatim

She totally agreed that our LEA are short-sighted and insane for refusing to fund ABA, despite the whole TAC agreeing with our targets and agreeing with our approach

She also told me, though, which was worrying news to me, that even if we win funding for ABA from the panel/tribunal, it's basically up to a school if they allow a 1:1 to be ABA-trained. And usually they won't because they generally have a bank of TAs on staff, so when/if your dc doesn't need one anymore, the TA would be transferred to another child, who might not be using ABA. Does anyone know if this is really how it works?

I think they do usually have own bank of TA's but I see people on this board who get own tutors to go in as TA so there must be a way (???)

Yes I thought that must be the case. Two of my tutors also shadow in schools (both funded through statements) so I can't understand it. Maybe the SALT was just trying to prepare me for disappointment!

Bialy we asked for ABA staff employed by us to go into school and be the TA. We costed out various options including using the schools TAs but once we had added on training, attendance at team meetings etc to get the TAs ABA trained there was little £ difference and the Tribunal allowed us to employ ABA staff. Also there is turnover of TAs (and when DS goes FT to school he will need 2 as it will be too intensive for 1 to do a full day) so there would be training costs year on year whereas ABA provider absorbs all the training costs.

The cost of a TA is not just their salary but their pension, training, admin, recruitment, holiday pay etc etc it does not come out that different and may even be cheaper to hire ABA staff. The cost to the LA is almost double the actual salary.

When you do the working document version of the Statement for the Tribunal add in wording which says that your child will be supported by ABA trained staff.

So our Statement says for provision

"The local authority will provide funding for a fulltime (35 hour per week. 48 weeks per year) ABA programme and access to a nursery/school setting" [ie they just provide the funding they do not have any role in organising the programme and nor do the school]

and

DS will be provided with a full time (35 hours a week, 48 weeks per year) ABA programme consisting of home based ABA provision and part time attendance (term time only) at a mainstream nursery or approved early years setting with ABA trained 1:1 support. The division between home based and nursery based learning will be at the discretion of the ABA supervisor and adjusted according to DS?s learning needs and development. (Then stuff about consultation and supervision hours)

There is also wording about collaborative working with school / setting targets etc its important to show ABA will work with school
LAs like to think children with ABA will be cut off in a room of their own being drilled whereas the reality is that DS is now massively more included with his peers, literally in his case - he has moved from the other side of the room during carpet time, to sat on the very corner of the carpet to now being sat right in the middle.

We were lucky to win at pre school age though which means we have been able to look at primary schools on the basis that we could say if DS comes here we will be employing his 1:1 are you ok with that. None of the schools have had a problem with it, for them its like a SALT coming in to work with him except every session. The only downside is that when a tutor is ill DS cannot go to nursery sometimes but then he only does a few sessions a week. However had he already been at school and we were trying to replace their staff with ours that would have been more difficult. Also as a Tribunal have ordered it they don't question it. I hear alot of stories about schools not wanting to hire ABA staff / fiddling the funding etc but if you word the Statement right you can keep that control. We pay the ABA staff and the LA pay us direct. No money goes to the nursery except for his mainstream placement.

What was really useful for us at tribunal was to get ABA to do a plan of how they expected to integrate DS from FT ABA into FT school and they set out the stages (skill not time based) which DS would need to master before that was a possibility eg when he could learn from group instruction ABA hours could be reduced. Tribunals don't like to think ABA is forever - if you can show there is a plan to fade back over time and transition into mainstream fully either with or without support that shows that ABA have that as a goal in mind.

Of course we fully expect to be dragged back to tribunal the moment DS sets foot in school if not before in which case our plan may come to nothing.