Moondog and ABA people...

[StarlightMcKenzie]

Do any of you know anything about SCERTS?

Star, are you interested in information, or experiences?

I have pulled up some interesting stuff on google, but if you are looking for actual experiences of it, then I won't spam you

Thanks Lougle. I suppose I was looking for information that doesn't come directly from the commercial developers, and experiences too.

For example PECS/TEACHH models can be a million miles away when it comes to PECS/TEACCH delivery.

Kestrel school are using it, and have a powerpoint presentation.

At first glance that looks like a complicated version of More Than Words.

They recommend More than Words in pre-verbal children.

It seems, from what I've read this morning, that it isn't a 'method' it's a 'model'. The 'model' is used to help practitioners/parents to decide on goal priorities and to identify learning opportunities from their everyday surroundings. However, they would expect ABA/TEACCH, PECS, etc., to be used in conjunction with it.

Using the SCERTS Model to guide practice with children with ASD

From the little experience I had I wasn't massively impressed - we had a tutor once who was more SCERTS than VB. Didn't really work out - I couldn't ever quite understand what she was teaching ds. (But then, despite her experience, she also said she didn't really see why ds needed any therapy and didn't think he was truly autistic )

My view might therefore be clouded but FWIW it didn't seem to tackle head-on some of the fundamental impairments of communication, play and behaviour in my ds.

Think lougle is right, it doesn't seem to be a method in itself exactly, more a strand of therapy aligned and to be used within another programme (most likely to be ABA/VB).

Okay. Had a bit of a look and still unsure of what it actually IS.

This doesn't necessarily mean anything bad as people probably say the same thing about ABA at the beginning.

It looks like LAs are using it as a credible response to ABA because it charts progress. Do you think I'm right? Perhaps an updated kind of TEACHH, or a way to update TEACHH?

It's something I hear of in a roundabout way occasionally these days. That and PACT.
If it is able to measure progress specifically then it sounds good to me.
A shame the links to the research do not work from official wabsite (which isn't working either).

It is actually a shameful indictment of our present system when we feel grateful that something that measures progress is available, which as we all know is palpalby not what the current system does, or if it does it is all couched in unmeasurable touchy feelp personal opinion whicxh just won't bloody do!

Come to think of it, ABA does what it says on the tin. When I graduated as an s/lt I thoguht we were supposed to do what it says on the tin then found we didn't but kept quiet about my discomfort thinking it was obviously a fault of mine that I couldn't instinctively grasp the fact that we were all marvellous and life changing in some nebulous manner.

Then I found out about PECS and ABA and had an epiphany.
There was actually something that did what it said in the tin!

I hope SGERTS does, but frankly not convinced by rading throguh what I have. I recoil at concepts like 'emotional regulation'.

I saw this on the Hub Lambeth Free School thread

I haven't seen much evidence to support SCERTS. Research Autism has it as unrated. I wonder why the Hub Free School is pushing it - do you think they feel they won't get support if they just call it an ABA school? Treehouse and Lighthouse are ABA schools, I feel if they want an ABA school they should stick to ABA and not hide behind something else they feel is more likely to be LA friendly.

The Hub lady on her thread also said this: The verbal behaviour approach within the field of ABA is the most advanced and best validated approach ? if consultants do not work with this model, I would be concerned. I'm not sure I have seen much evidence for this either. It worries me that a very small group of parents seemed to have decided on a very fixed idea of the approach to be used. The one time someone told me VB was the only way to go was a consultant who wanted to charge lots of money and reckoned she could oversee DS programme from 200 miles away every 3 months. I have never regretted going for the more Lovaas based ABA approach which is overseen by someone weekly on the doorstep. The little I know about VB made it seem too advanced for DS when he started ABA. It seemed to be aimed at more HF children than DS was initially.

It makes me think the school must have a partner / ABA consultant who does VB and thats why they have chosen this.

I think most ABA programmes these days have incorporated more social communication skills into their programmes, I am not sure the differences are any more than marketing. Many of these people who started out 30-40 years ago have developed their own approach be it Autism Partnership, PRT, Early Denver etc - they all started from the same point and borrowing from each other and research and their approaches are constantly evolving, not a fixed complete product. Schools themselves evolve and develop their own curriculum over time. I am a bit sceptical of imposing a very rigid curriculum on a school which says it will cater for all ages and all parts of the spectrum. By definition they can only teach in small groups if children in the group are at a similar level.

I also feel they should not mix something without good evidence (SCERTS) with something with good evidence (ABA). That seems to undermine the principles of what they say they want to do.

Must admit we've always done VB, Agnes, and my boy is deffo not hf. I think it is a pretty good version of ABA, but must admit I'm less bothered about what branch of ABA they use - I am more in the camp marked "anything but Teacch/eclectic"!

I must admit to being rather ocnfused when people talk about VB/Lovaas/ABA as if they are all different things.
All I know about is applying the principles of ABA to things people need to learn how to do.
I suppose that is because I have never been exposed really to the commercial world of ABA (not that I have any issue whatsoever with there being a commercial world).

What I /we do is always backed up by academic research and has to fit within the context of a regular school day.
Oh, and work.
Or we don't do it.

Thanks everyone. This has been really helpful.

Probably not going to buy the scarily priced manual for the time being.

Lougle, thanks for digging up some things to read. I've read a bit and will read some more.

Oh yes, and tis I!

Agnes we were sold on to the idea of VB NET as a way of learning and I must admit that it hasn't really worked for us as much as we would have liked to. We are going to give AP a try to see if we have any success with it. I agree with you that it is probably more suited to HF.

moondog I am no expert so cannot say how much difference there is between Lovaas/VB in principle, but in practice from what limited exposure I have had to different providers, the way it is applied, the difference is like between day and night.

I think in our unregulated provision context NET more easily equates to sloppy practice. I'd say you had to be more experienced and qualified to know how to gather data and measure progress in the natural environment and for social interaction which can ave a lot of uncontrollable variables.

I think some providers use NET to make things up on the spot if I'm honest, although the principles behind it are sound and actually just ABA as applied in the environment as opposed to a who new form of therapy, which is probably why it is hard academically to differentiate between them.

I am not knocking the consultants entirely although for some it really is sloppy practice. But they are the ones who come in for a few hours a month or so, tell you what to do, how to do it and you are left at the mercy of supervisors and therapists. Where it falls down is with the therapists, Like gloria mentioned it is applied in the environment and not many tutors have the skills to do that as it can be very variable and unpredictable.

Oh yes, and tis I

^^There is a cryptic clue, if I ever saw one..

That's better. Gloria was my last Christmas year Christmas name but I prefer this.

Last namechange for Chritsmas!

We've used the VB approach too, and I probably tend to agree that it might be more suited to the HF child removes splinter from backside

But tbh the only major difference I gathered is that VB is a) more NET based, and b) treats language as a behaviour/skill that can be taught - which I don't think is a radical concept, just one that wasn't developed when Lovaas first started. Not sure if you can distinguish that much between ABA and VB, though I agree that there is probably a huge difference between a VB programme now and eg a Lovaas programme in 1990. (Probably why so many LAs etc are so prejudiced and out of touch as they don't really understand what it is.)

Wrt to the NET aspect, that's probably why VB is probably more used for HF children - that was certainly why we thought it suitable for ds as his skill deficits were overwhelmingly social ones, so hard to develop without using NET.

gloria using the VB approach has never posed a problem for data collection, although we do have to find very creative and quick-thinking tutors for it to work.

doh, offcourse it is you, should read threads carefully.

Took me so long to write that I missed several posts, and a name-change

It really is as clear as mud, isn't it.
Agnes you mentioned that AP uses Lovaas, but at the weekend, they were clearly marketing their approach as VB because they focus on language first and foremost.

What has your experience been, is it Lovaas or VB? or is it a case that they have simply changed their approach recently?