General Autism Discussion

That doesn't surprise me, and it pisses me off. That can't be good for the future of our children.

One Size Does Not Fit All! And I wish people would realize that. I swear, I keep encountering more and more information about how a policy that helps one group harms another, or about how different people are.

I remember back as a kid, hearing about how the school system benefited boys but left girls behind. More recently, I'd been hearing about how girls were springing ahead and boys were falling behind. That alone sends me the message that there are differences in how the genders learn. And that's just the genders.

To say nothing of yet more differences in learning style when you take more individual differences into account.

edited 12th Nov '15 6:15:03 PM by BonsaiForest

I am a teacher, and you're over-generalizing.

You teach grade school? When did you graduate?

The teachers I know who have graduated within the past 5 years and all of my son's teachers, counselors, and tutors say otherwise.

And no, not all of them are in Arkansas.

Then they are in violation of mandated professional standards, and possibly the law.

Seven colleges and three states are against the law as well as all four Praxis exams?

If nothing else, we all know how selective laws are enforced and how many people give no fucks otherwise.

The laws may not be enforced, but they are there because everyone recognized how important it is to help disabled children with their unique educational needs. Can we move on?

Double post because I saw the problem:

An IEP is meant to ensure that students receive an appropriate placement, not "only" special education classrooms or special schools. It is meant to give the student a chance to participate in "normal" school culture and academics as much as is possible for that individual student. In this way, the student is able to have specialized assistance only when such assistance is absolutely necessary, and otherwise maintains the freedom to interact with and participate in the activities of his or her more general school peers.

This is a 504 plan.

This isnt a teaching method. This isnt a guideline so teachers know how to teach multiple education groups. This is the requirement that if a kid has an offical diagnosis recognized by the district to accommodate a 504 plan.

There is the kicker.

School districts dont have to agree on diagnosis requirements and even then not everyone allows for certain papers to be recognized, plus there is an exception if plans require resources beyond the means of the school.

Ive been in plenty of these meetings both for my kid and my clients.

Teachers dont have to accommodate every kid and arent taught how to teach different kids. They have other things to do. It is up to people like Polarstern and clinicians to decide how the kid is taught and advocate for that with the board.

Teachers can only do as they are told.

edited 12th Nov '15 7:30:47 PM by Gabrael

Teachers have considerable discretion how they conduct their classrooms. Do you think that IEP's can be implemented without trained teachers to implement them? I cant imagine how that would work. We expect teachers to apply their own professional judgement in designing and carrying out their instructional plans. That's why they receive advanced education, certification and training.

Anyway, in case you aren't aware of the many approaches that teachers can use:

Accommodating All Children in the Early Childhood Classroom

Accommodations, Techniques and Aids For Learning

Educating Children with Special Needs

Classroom Accommodations for Math Learning Disabilities

Tips for Teachers: Teaching Students with Disabilities

I could reference many, many more. I have direct personal experience not only with IEP's, but with team teaching, professional learning communities, Teacher Leadership programs, and many other professional development approaches that promote individualized learning.

BTW, individualized learning isn't inconsistent with standardized testing or uniform educational standards. Instructional techniques are about the process, educational standards, including testing standards, are about the outcome. Individualized instruction is all about ensuring that all students meet the same high standards.

And while our discussion is about children with disabilities, really all children should be treated as individual human beings and receive some form of individualized attention in the classroom. It's simply the most effective form of learning.

edited 12th Nov '15 7:48:18 PM by DeMarquis

I agree kids should have better, what I disagree with you is if our teachers are being trained and prepared the way you describe because all my experience is no. The friends I have who have finished their education, taken their Praxis, and are actually teaching say no. So does the counselling firm my son receives treatment through, the school districts I worked with for my clients, and the DHS guidelines I sat in while being written.

Hence when I asked when you took your praxis because that could explain why there was a discrepancy.

In everything I saw, the counselors wrote the lesson plan and the teachers dished it out. The teachers didnt do anything except note problems and gauge results. If the desired results werent given, the counselors were the only ones who made changes.

Thats kinda the whole point of a 504.

The fundamental point is teachers dont have the control everyone seems to think they do and are often backed into corners with what they are allowed and what they arent both because this is not their expertise and they have liabilities as well.

If we want to solve this problem, we need to look at how the system is broken and how to fix it. And it is deeper than just the teachers, who are often underpaid, undersupported, and have their hands tied just as badly as the kids.

Might it be worth considering that the allowance of teachers to exercise judgment and carry out personalisation might vary greatly between places you guys live? I mean you're both in the US, but I'm figuring you're at least in different states, if not radically different ones with highly opposed cultures and ideologies.

Praxis is the national licensing test for teacher certification. That's the same no matter what state.

While college lesson plans vary, especially between private and public colleges, the Praxis is the same.

I have looked over the Praxis I and II, but never taken it. It was part of the research for the institution I worked for. That also adhered to federal standards.

So while there can be some room for variation, again, one friend is in Texas, the other Illinois, and of course Arkansas and all of us have the same results.

This could be related to the discussion that's been going on.

How I Failed as a Teacher with an Autistic Student.

Interestingly, his symptoms are quite different from mine at the time. Very different.

I won't sum it up because there's too many important details to sum up, so I think it's best to read it if you're interested.

Speaking for myself, when I did go to school none of the teachers (or students) had first hand knowledge to ASD if memory serves. My parents did a lot of explanatory and information work and it did work out well.

Back to a page ago, I admit I have an easier time "assimilating" than most people on the spectrum. So honestly, could that correlate with my better appreciation of humanities?

Yeah, because you get "them" a little faster and more efficiently than those who deal in abstractions in the stereotypically-deep end of the spectrum.

@Gab: I haven't taken the Praxis test, I'm a college instructor. However, I do have professional experience and training in the areas of curriculum and instructional design, including K-12. I have worked with public school teachers in a consulting capacity helping them design their instructional approaches. Plus, I have two children in elementary school. So I know what American teachers do in the classroom.

Here is the Praxis study guide for "Principles of Learning and Teaching K-6]], click on the "Look Inside" option and scroll down until you see "Competency 2: Students as Diverse Learners". This will familiarize you with the ways in which teachers are expected to treat students as individual learners. Note that is applies to all students, not just students with disabilities.

Here you will find the study guide for "Special Education: Core Knowledge and Applications". Using Look Inside, scroll down to "Domain Three: Personalized Study Plan." This section outlines the methods teachers are expected to use to personalize instruction for students with special education needs.

edited 14th Nov '15 8:25:01 AM by DeMarquis

There is your problem.

What your little manuals are saying aren't being prioritized in the overall system.

If you took the Praxis, even one of them, you would know this.

If you went to any public school, you would know this. If you actually signed off on a federal 504 plan, you would know this.

Teachers in general, are not special ed teachers and aren't trained on how to teach like that.

They know there is the option. Many know what body of accountability to report to. But teachers aren't even allowed to implement 504s without administrative permission and can be fired for doing so without.

Gotta get out of the books and get into the field more.

I think I've demonstrated my point. This is a derail. Lets move on.

I'm at a chapter about how autism was defined in the DSM, and why, along with why it appeared to be on the rise (spoilers: broadening criteria).

Two things that stick out to me so far. One is that Lorna Wing had made the suggestion of making Asperger's Syndrome considered separate from autism in the DSM-IV, and that idea was clearly on the table. She was under the belief that people would be more likely to seek a diagnosis with the stigmatizing name of "autism". (And apparently, she was right.) So yeah, separating Asperger's from autism was straight-up political. Unifying them was scientific.

And then there's this:

This is an argument I've seen people raise, the degree to which autism is simply characteristics that exist in the public at large, taken to an extreme. This is an argument that actually dates back to Hans Asperger's time in the 1940s, as he himself described autism as a personality type!

Meanwhile, I am on page 398 out of 534. I hope this book never ends. I intend to give my full thoughts on it when I'm done. I think everyone who wants to know about autism should read this.

edited 16th Nov '15 1:57:08 PM by BonsaiForest

That isnt unique to Asperger's, nor did it begin the 1940's. Psychology has always had difficulty distinguishing between extreme personalities and mental disorders (i.e., the history of the term "Neuroticism").

Doesn't surprise me that the concept of debating whether something is a disorder or merely a personality type is neither new nor originated from Asperger. Indeed, I'm willing to bet that the debate over what's a personality quirk or type and what's a mental condition has gone on for ages.

Anyway, Age of Autism has an editorial about the Sesame Street character with autism. Age of Autism is an anti-vaxxer site and one that believes that autism is on the rise, as opposed to merely being more correctly identified and labeled. However, even though I disagree tremendously with their worldview, this editorial makes a few valid points, mixed in with the usual Age of Autism crap.

I think portraying autism in a female would help a lot since there are a lot of people who think it's rare in females. It's not like seeing it in a female would make it hard to identify in a male. Indeed, seeing it portrayed only in a male might make its more subtler presentation in a female harder to recognize.

And no, autism didn't suddenly skyrocket since the 1960s. NeuroTribes goes to great lengths to point out, through many stories and angles, that autism is not on the rise, but rather than Hans Asperger's beliefs that it is "all around us" and "not at all rare" appear to be very true, as the book goes into detail about the arguments and debates and scientific discoveries that led to the expanding definition, and the growing public awareness of the condition in its varied forms.

Okay, besides it not being an epidemic, I do think this person has a point about portraying different forms of autism. It simply does not appear the same way in any two random autistics. Showing more than one portrayal of autism would help make that a bit more clear. And while I think this person has a point about how you'll get people of older ages to accept autism, I think starting with early childhood is a good idea just the same. It's a start, not an endpoint.

A comment:

edited 17th Nov '15 1:23:06 PM by BonsaiForest

I do not think a Children's show is particularly the place to be going Darker and Edgier on.

No, definitely not the place to portray severe autism, as that author suggests. Though I do still think more than one type of autism is still good to portray.

Come to think of it, IIRC (as I'm at work and don't have access to You Tube), they did portray nonverbal autism in a video about real kids on the spectrum.

At some point, this inevitably will make me look as some sort of Moral Guardian Think of the Children! style of person, but I just think I am more fitting to the point of view of the company that would be making the muppets.

I think the definition of it is "edutainment" show, for children. Education part of it is a nice bonus but first and foremost it is a show dedicated to entertaining children. The better parents can take advantage of this and segue some subjects of these shows into more "real" or "harsh" realities.

For example, after an episode where the parent watches the episode with their children they can think of a RL example and try to put the kids in context.

If the parent just lets the kid see th episode and hope that this alone is going to teach them all they need about autism ever, they are pretty much hopelessly naive. Better to keep the shows as edutainment: Entertainment and the small bit of education while we are at it, for children rather than some sort of book/play/frankenstein monster of legos and play doh.

I totally agree. I think it's best that parents (or other family members, like, um, uncles ) spend time with the kids and talk to them about the media they consume, and put it all in perspective and explain it and connect it to the real world. And that's something that can only be done by actually interacting with a person.

Now, an article titled Why I love knowing I have high-functioning autism.

This is someone who's grateful for a diagnosis. She tried faking normalcy and couldn't do it. Doctor after doctor couldn't explain what was going on. I wonder how many more people there are in her situation.

While some people have said they don't want a diagnosis or a label, for others, there's real value in it. For example, her older son shows autism traits, but doesn't want a diagnosis. Whereas for her, the diagnosis was a godsend. (Oh, and if you're wondering how she got her job that she's good at, it was her second husband, an editor at a publishing company, who got it for her! In other words, connections!)

Interestingly, multiple times the possibility that she had autism either was raised by someone else (say, a nurse who saw her having a meltdown), or she briefly considered it herself (like when she read about boys with autism and saw some of herself in them), but she brushed it off and figured that no way did she have it herself.

edited 17th Nov '15 1:45:38 PM by BonsaiForest