Training v experience

[blackgooseberry]

After having asked what ASD training the support staff have the school advise that they are all 'very experienced' no mention about training. Should 1:1 TA's be generally trained?

According to my LA, "experience" means the same as "training/qualifications". Now it's in the hands of a Tribunal to decide who is right.

The trouble is that decent training is hard to come by IME.

If experienced means that they have a child with Asd of their own or have worked with many children who have been successfully included then they could actually know more than someone who has been on a couple of rubbish courses.

If experienced means that they have met someone once in Asda whose nephews best friends dad had Asd then forget it

Unfortunately, I think it all comes down to the individual. I've met one that had actual training that were rubbish because they couldn't really apply the training to the situation (ironic, that, eh? ), one that had some training and some experience that was brilliant, and one that had no training and lots of experience however it was with her child and she couldn't seem to understand that not all children have the same needs.

It's a mixed bag, IMO. I don't think I'd choose someone strictly based on training or experience. Sorry, that's probably not helpful.

It's virtually impossible to tell as so much 'training' is dire and does not lead to an increase in competencies as seen in improved outcomes for the child in question. Equally, you have people who have been in this field for years who I would not trust with a gerbil. I have tried and tried to distil what makes a great 1:1 and I have worked with hundreds over the years, amongst whom are some absolute crackers, not all of whom are very experienced or qualified. What makes them stand out is a genuine interest, a willingness to ask questions or to say when they are struggling and sticking power-to carry out a programme day in and day out and to keep at it. Too many are not motivated to do so and veer towards things they like doing, not what is good for the child. Unfortunately, I think it is nearly impossible for parents to suss this out. I only get a feel for someone by working alongside them in a classroom, and over a period of weeks.

In our case, we are waiting to see if DS should be taught by someone "experienced" or someone with a "post-grad qualification". Whilst I totally accept the argument about experienced can be better then qualification, if someone has gone to the trouble of doing a formal qualification (and all that entails) it shows that they are personally dedicated to the subject. It's a "measure" that everyone understands

Experienced can just mean lots of experience of failing previous children with asd. Training can mean 1 day general not teach you anything you could apply to the child in front of you courses. We work with an ABA provider and many of staff are new graduates with interest and enthusiasm and academic ability to collect and analyse data and know when to ask for advice, but no previous experience or training. The provider gives them a very rigorous academic and practical training on the job with several children and plenty of opportunities to observe more experienced staff. All the staff will be supervised weekly so will be observed working with each child on their case list at least once a month. They can ring and ask supervisor for advice at any time. Almost all staff become excellent tutors but I would say it takes most of them 18 months to become really confident with all aspects of programme. They need 5 years experience as tutor before can become a supervisor themselves (and the person who sets and decides which programmes to teach). Sadly this is not a model found in LA schools but IMR it takesm

Experienced can just mean lots of experience of failing previous children with asd. Training can mean 1 day general not teach you anything you could apply to the child in front of you courses. We work with an ABA provider and many of staff are new graduates with interest and enthusiasm and academic ability to collect and analyse data and know when to ask for advice, but no previous experience or training. The provider gives them a very rigorous academic and practical training on the job with several children and plenty of opportunities to observe more experienced staff. All the staff will be supervised weekly so will be observed working with each child on their case list at least once a month. They can ring and ask supervisor for advice at any time. Almost all staff become excellent tutors but I would say it takes most of them 18 months to become really confident with all aspects of programme. They need 5 years experience as tutor before can become a supervisor themselves (and the person who sets and decides which programmes to teach). Sadly this is not a model found in LA schools but IME it takes months and an experienced person would be someone with 5+ years and 15-20 children under their belt.

Grr stupid phone

I was told that after one voluntary after-school training session that all relevant staff were considered fully trained in that specific condition .
As Moondog says it does seem to very much depend on the willingness of the 1:1 to be supportive. I think it's too easy for schools to claim that staff are 'trained' as it depends on what their interpretation of 'trained' is.

'Experienced can just mean lots of experience of failing previous children with asd. '
So true Agnes.

It is also true that you will not find anyone better trained than someone working with an accredited ABA provider or behaviour analyst.
It puts anything an LEA or an s/lt department could provide (at this moment in time) in the shade.

1:1s can have good training and they can have a lot of experience, but if they can't form a good bond with your DC for any reason, then it's all pretty pointless.