Re: Doing It Wrong?

[Guest guest]

>

> >>>>>You're all doing good work, and the best indicator is you're taking the

time

> to learn and make yourselves better as parents and teachers.

>

> Mark Cyr

> Grant's dad.<<<<<

The other day I was talking with a group of parents with children who were all

on the spectrum, and was shocked that none of them were doing ABA, and in fact a

few

didn't really know what it was. Most of them rattled off a list of medications

the kids were on and said they simply do whatever the schools do. After spending

five

minutes with them, I felt both sorrow that they were either unwilling to do or

were uneducated about ABA. And true surprise that they had extensive knowledge

of all

the meds the kids were on, but very little about the teaching that was going on.

Mark is right, by even being on this list and trying to learn, we are doing a

good

job as parents. I know meds are sometimes neccesaary, but I hope that in the

future all medical and school professionals would consider it AFTER an ABA type

program has been tried for a while. It seems to me it would be like giving a man

with a broken leg pain pills or a cast, but never bothering to help him learn to

walk with a crutch. I feel that I would have to really screw up a DTT program

for them to come out of it worse off than before.

Peggy BowedOak1@... ( who by no means is disputing the choice of

medicating your child and hopes you understand my point)

>

>

> -----------------

>

[Guest guest]

Mark said:

> When I think how much time we wasted because of poor teaching that

> artificially slowed Grant's rate of acquisition because a set of rules said

> we needed to " master " a task before moving on I want to scream.

I've told this story before but I think it bears repeating. When we were

teaching prepositions in our Lovaas replication site program, Mr.

began to use them spontaneously. For example, while while we were driving in

the car he said " Look Mommy, there's a van in front of us, a truck beside

us, and a car behind us. "

I told this to my consultant who said: " Well, you don't have data here in

your book showing that he has those targets mastered 90% across three tutors

over two days, so I can't considered it mastered. And I can't give you any

more language programs until you do this "

I (self-funded) said: " There is no f*cking way I'm going to pay someone to

do that " . And I fired her.

Melinda

Mom to Mr. and

Survivor of MANY violent tantrums caused by bad teaching and boredom.

[Guest guest]

Listers,

I've followed this thread with some interest and would like to add some

comments.

I think what Peggy was driving at in the initial " Doing it wrong " statement

was that her program, like many of us who began with recipe/bowderlized

versions of the science of ABA, suffered from a severe case of " disteachia "

as Vince puts it. (Embarrassing as it is to admit, Vince actually uses video

of our program under the direction of our former consultant to illustrate

" disteachia " to his staff at Jericho). Our teaching techniques were all

wrong. We were mired in no,no prompts, spending more time taking data than

teaching and didn't adequately pair ourselves and our therapists with

reinforcement. Of course, such programs with their " five steps to mastery "

and fairly rigid rules came about because it was believed to be much easier

to export a set of rules to parents and therapists who lack 5-10+ years of

experience and academic training than to teach them the actual science. Kind

of a snotty attitude when you think about it, but typical. And...as Vince

openly talks about at his conferences, it works for many, though not all,

kids.

Language programming in the " traditional " ABA programs, tends to consist

entirely of tacting. Did you ever wonder why? I have a hunch it is because

of the nature of diagnostic tests. On the surface, it makes no sense for a

kid who can't ask for juice when he's thirsty to complete a 48 piece puzzle

or be able to imitate 30+ block movements. Unless of course, you are having

them evaluated every 4-6 months against the diagnostic tests. Almost all the

language that gets tested is in the form of tacting. So what happens? Two

years into an ABA program you get a child who tests " normal " on the

diagnostic tools but doesn't have any (or little) functional language.

Moreover, where do all these rules about the number of skills, words, etc.

that need to be " mastered " before moving onto the next program come from?

When I think how much time we wasted because of poor teaching that

artificially slowed Grant's rate of acquisition because a set of rules said

we needed to " master " a task before moving on I want to scream. Instead of

taking three weeks to get through all the motor imitation it could have been

three hours. (And only our lead therapist probing him through 22 different

skills one evening saved us from even more time wasted)

This is not to argue the point made so well by Rhonda that there are

important pre-cognitive skills that are taught in all ABA programs. I have a

study floating around the house that show how important the early acquisition

of imitative skills is. That said, if you watch Vince work with children in

his videos he usually starts by assessing a childs imitative repetoire, both

motor and vocal. If you teach properly (mix and vary) imitation never leaves

your program. And like Melinda, we've watched Grant with awe at school as he

picks up the social cues provided by other children. (Though we have the

opposite problem of Grant blurting out answers without raising his hand and

waiting to be asked.) Safety can be taught within a verbal program. Names,

addresses and phone numbers can be taught using the same techniques used to

teach and expand categories. During your natural environment teaching (50%

of your program) you can work on self help and life skills using the very

same techniques used to get your child to the table in the first place.

Since Verbal Behavior IS part of ABA that shouldn't be an issue. I guess the

lack of discussion of other programs is lacking on the list because the

verbal behavior components are so novel that most people have lots of

questions on those...but that doesn't mean the other skills aren't still

being taught by those of us doing programs that are verbal intensive.

I, for one, am not a believer in " razoring in " VB programs. It won't work

unless the general format of your program is already errorless. If you are

already doing errorless teaching and are using your most powerful reinforcers

at the table (the one's he'll tantrum for and you've been afraid to use), it

might be possible. I say this because we tried it, and while in the short

run Grant made sizeable gains, in the long run it failed miserably. For us

the failure happened on the reinforcement side. " Go play " or a toy wasn't

going to cut it and social reinforcement is time consuming as we upped the

difficulty level.

Data, I believe, also provides a false sense of structure for therapists and

parents. In our case the therapists openly admitted they were attached to

the " book " and felt lost without it. In the beginning we tried to take data,

but that tends to result in poor teaching in the form of falling into the rut

of running " programs. " They'd do tacting, and take data, then FFC and data,

then categories, and take data. A conversation doesn't move that way does

it? Data slows your pace of instruction. If you're aiming for 25-30

responses per minute, are you ever going to reach a minute of teaching? And,

if the goal is hundreds, if not thousands of responses between reinforcement,

how many responses can you realistically keep track of? The need for data,

not the child's needs/capabilities is then driving your program. Mind you,

we still take data, but it is targeted very specifically to immediate goals

we want to attain and we only probe. It's much better to run a probe first

thing in the morning throwing stuff into 'yes' and 'no' piles for ten minutes

and then get on with teaching is better than stopping every minute to record

responses.

I still have trouble with the notion that VB intensive programs have a " lack

of structure. " Nothing could be further from the truth. The only difference

in this type of teaching is that instead of presenting discrete tasks

serially, you are presenting them mixed together. Looking back, since we

felt the same way, we were really just making an excuse for therapists who

had become prompt dependent on the program book. And, as difficult as it is

to say this, (please don't flame me for this) to blame the child in any way

(he can't handle the lack of structure, etc) is to really make excuses for

poor teaching. I say this because we used to do that. If Grant struggled he

was bored or something else. In the end the problem was us as teachers.

We'd either killed reinforcers, didn't have powerful enough reinforcers, or

had lapsed into poor teaching techniques. You and the therapists have to

check your egos at the door and take on all the responsibility for the

child's progress. Every time Grant was having trouble, we, not his autism,

were to blame. Of course, some kids have some very real limitations based on

neurology and those are real obstacles. The point is the teacher, not the

student need to be the focus when problems occur. In retrospect, taking the

time out of training the therapists for at least a month at team meetings and

having them practice on each other would have been a very wise investment

before ever implementing anything with Grant.

I'm sorry to preach or sound harsh. Trust me, if there's an error to be made

or a way to screw up the transition...we did it. But, it was still the best

thing we ever did. Through it all we learned never to doubt the sources of

problems, and their solutions, lay in the teaching. Today, we got 42

spontaneous initiations with classmates today at school (see Barb, we still

take data), something we wouldn't have dreamed of a year ago. Actually, you

guys are the first to hear it, and I was all set to hear his aide come home

and report a zero.

You're all doing good work, and the best indicator is you're taking the time

to learn and make yourselves better as parents and teachers.

Mark Cyr

Grant's dad.

[Guest guest]

Well said, Melinda! Consultants fail to realize sometimes that they work

for us and can be fired by us. Those who fail to listen to the family's

needs won't last long.

(who recently had the 'opportunity' to just say NO, this is the way

it's going to be)

[Guest guest]

At 05:35 PM 10/16/00 EDT, Markc612@... wrote:

>Listers,

>I've followed this thread with some interest and would like to add some

>comments.

>I think what Peggy was driving at in the initial " Doing it wrong " statement

>was that her program, like many of us who began with recipe/bowderlized

>versions of the science of ABA, suffered from a severe case of " disteachia "

>as Vince puts it. (Embarrassing as it is to admit, Vince actually uses

video

>of our program under the direction of our former consultant to illustrate

> " disteachia " to his staff at Jericho). Our teaching techniques were all

>wrong.

NO FLAME! But can I just say something. I loved Vince Carbone's

presentation, energy, enthusiasm, intelligence, humor and honesty. That

said, " C'mon, lets be a bit more balanced, and remember he is not God. "

There are children who will use his " type " of ABA who will not do well. I

can guarantee this, and there are kids who are " mired " in the no, no,

prompt world who are now " recovered " by all accounts, including a few my

eyes have set upon. How can we be so rigid about what we call rigidity?

Of course, such programs with their " five steps to mastery "

>and fairly rigid rules came about because it was believed to be much easier

>to export a set of rules to parents and therapists who lack 5-10+ years of

>experience and academic training than to teach them the actual science.

Kind

>of a snotty attitude when you think about it, but typical.

Yes, this is true, the five, or in more cases, three people, three days

steps is very common, very rigid and so engrained that some people can not

see beyond their nose, and I do agree, it's kind of a snotty attitude, as

if only they can dictate when your child can or can not do something for

EVERY last goal and objective even if they rarely see the child in question.

But, I do believe that this over simplifies things to some degree, and

makes the idea of VB seem simple or easy and immediately successful for

everyone, or if it's not then who do we blame, the adult? Gee, this smacks

of blame the parent, or in this case, blame the therapist a little too

readily. But before you think I think it is the kid, please read on...

>

>Language programming in the " traditional " ABA programs, tends to consist

>entirely of tacting. Did you ever wonder why? I have a hunch it is because

>of the nature of diagnostic tests. On the surface, it makes no sense for a

>kid who can't ask for juice when he's thirsty to complete a 48 piece puzzle

>or be able to imitate 30+ block movements. Unless of course, you are having

>them evaluated every 4-6 months against the diagnostic tests.

Ahh, you've hit a nail on the head here. I think a lot of it is because

they are teaching to a test. I suppose this makes some TINY bit of sense,

since we're trying to justify the intensity, cost, etc., of serving

children and somehow we have to set some standard. Not that I approve

personally on a personal level, but I understand it. And I absolutely hate

the fact that block pattern imitation and so forth seem to be the end all

to all, and that many programs including mine, worked on these to the

exclusion of communication for a long time. They acted like if he could not

do complex block patterns, he would not learn to talk. Well, I do have to

say, Isaac is still the poorest block imitator I have met, and yet his

language is improving weekly.

I guess the

>lack of discussion of other programs is lacking on the list because the

>verbal behavior components are so novel that most people have lots of

>questions on those...but that doesn't mean the other skills aren't still

>being taught by those of us doing programs that are verbal intensive.

>

Maybe we need to discuss this more. I think that there are a lot of things

not discussed much, specific teaching practices that are not related to

language and behavior problems, and it seems to be not addressed or

simplified, as in use better reinforcers?

>

>Data, I believe, also provides a false sense of structure for therapists and

>parents. In our case the therapists openly admitted they were attached to

>the " book " and felt lost without it. In the beginning we tried to take

data,

>but that tends to result in poor teaching in the form of falling into the

rut

>of running " programs. " They'd do tacting, and take data, then FFC and data,

>then categories, and take data. A conversation doesn't move that way does

>it? Data slows your pace of instruction. If you're aiming for 25-30

>responses per minute, are you ever going to reach a minute of teaching?

And,

>if the goal is hundreds, if not thousands of responses between

reinforcement,

>how many responses can you realistically keep track of? The need for data,

>not the child's needs/capabilities is then driving your program. Mind you,

>we still take data, but it is targeted very specifically to immediate goals

>we want to attain and we only probe. It's much better to run a probe first

>thing in the morning throwing stuff into 'yes' and 'no' piles for ten

minutes

>and then get on with teaching is better than stopping every minute to record

>responses.

>

While I agree with the above in theory, I think it depends on where your

child is at, how much language, and how much success you're having with

mixing trials and getting some sense of direction and integration.

The fact is whether we like it or not, many of us have therapists that are

on learning curves, ourselves that are on learning curves and it is very

unsettling to wonder if the child is being prompt dependent, not reinforced

enough, legitamately tired, testing one therapist more than others, bored,

and yes this is a real thing sometimes, too easy, too much, too little.

This kind of therapy is difficult. Part of the reason is I believe it

actually takes more creativity and intuitive thinking, in spite of the

program being based on science and principles of ABA.

>I still have trouble with the notion that VB intensive programs have a " lack

>of structure. " Nothing could be further from the truth. The only

difference

>in this type of teaching is that instead of presenting discrete tasks

>serially, you are presenting them mixed together. Looking back, since we

>felt the same way, we were really just making an excuse for therapists who

>had become prompt dependent on the program book. And, as difficult as it is

>to say this, (please don't flame me for this) to blame the child in any way

>(he can't handle the lack of structure, etc) is to really make excuses for

>poor teaching.

I disagree. Or I should say, and this is no flame, I think it's an easy

excuse. It is just as easy to blame the kid, which far more people do, and

now it's blame the teaching. Perhaps, it really is hard, with certain kids,

certain tasks, etc., to get a handle of good teaching when you're moving

fast, and in and out of materials and processing so many things, without

more concrete guide lines. I am not saying the other way is preferable. I

am commited more and more to our VB style, but I do believe that there is a

lack of OBVIOUS structure. There's a looseness within boundaries that has

to be learned and understood and always gaged session per session that

makes it harder, and yet an observer may think it is easier. They're just

asking questions, talking, etc., but we all know it is far more than that.

There is a prompting style, a correction style, targets, priority areas,

etc., but to juggle all of it well and to understand where you're going is

not easy. And while I in no way do not mean this as a flame, to suggest all

children need or require the same structure or lack of, or that lack of

structure is not important or more important for some is to disregard

learning style and to individualize. You could easily get caught into the

ole mastery crap you talked about before that some traditional ABA

consultants discussed as being so critical, without really seeing that

without tinkering, probing, playing and teasing out specific issues, the

kid may never move ahead, and yet doing those very things including

understanding attention span issues, stimuli presentations, etc., you might

get that kid to acquire three times as much in half the time, knowing what

you need to know. So, yes I feel safe in saying that for my son, not having

some set up that allowed him to understand what was going on, when things

started, ended, and what we were needing from him, without him feeling

badgered or confused was as important as how we taught. It was the

beginning of how we taught and teach better.

In retrospect, taking the

>time out of training the therapists for at least a month at team meetings

and

>having them practice on each other would have been a very wise investment

>before ever implementing anything with Grant.

>

Wish we had the time, money and energy to do so, but Ize won't wait and

neither can we. :-(

>I'm sorry to preach or sound harsh. Trust me, if there's an error to be

made

>or a way to screw up the transition...we did it. But, it was still the best

>thing we ever did. Through it all we learned never to doubt the sources of

>problems, and their solutions, lay in the teaching. Today, we got 42

>spontaneous initiations with classmates today at school (see Barb, we still

>take data), something we wouldn't have dreamed of a year ago. Actually, you

>guys are the first to hear it, and I was all set to hear his aide come home

>and report a zero.

>

COOL!!!

>You're all doing good work, and the best indicator is you're taking the time

>to learn and make yourselves better as parents and teachers.

>

>

Mark,

I agree more than I don't, but I still feel like I joined the anti-smoking

club sometimes, and you better watch out if you still sneak a cigarette or

think about it. (an analogy. I stopped smoking years ago, and do not like

people smoking in my house, but what they do with their lungs is their

business.)

I do honestly agree that the teachers have to take responsiblity for things

far more than most have done, and parents need to push and encourage around

the clock, but ideally find a happy medium, so they feel like a loving

parent, not an SS man or woman.

On the other hand, I honestly believe that there are unique learning styles

and needs and that sometimes it is not so simple as dismissing struggles

with good or bad teaching. It can create guilt, complexes and fear on the

parts of the adults, if you hammer home, it is you, not the kid. Maybe it

is a tricky kid???? One thing that did come across at the Carbone

conference in Ohio was how Vince would not answer most individual questions

on behavior or certain struggling learning issues, because he said you have

to address THAT kid, and THAT situation and while you draw on your past

experience and the kids you worked with, this kid may be a whole new ball

game. I think remembering that, that even with excellent players, you may

need to figure out better moves and better plays as you go, and that is not

always easy by far. Having no data, no programs, etc., can make you feel

even more lost because you don't know if you're fixing it or making it

better, and this can be a scary thing for some of us.

Jennie, has not taken data in four days. Only smiling cause the kid has

manded multiple times a day for reinforcers with NO prompts and has tacted

several times with no prompt, so I can see that with my eyes and hear it

with my eyes. The rest of the program, I am quivering about.... HELP! I can

not wait till those nanny cams are all hooked up tonight!!!

[Guest guest]

Mark,

I appreciate your feedback and viewpoints, but our kids are all very

different, and I still believe that there is some merits in each

approach, and blending the best of the two is the way to go.

Also, both Lovaas and VB style ABA programs can be done badly or done

very well - the keys are to address ALL of the child's issues

individually, being flexible and changing methods when necessary in

order to do that, and to always be consistent with the overall

principles of ABA.

I guess I hope this doesn't turn into sniping about which one is

best... one of the only things I didn't like about Vince's seminar

was

the one or two potshots he took at Lovaas. There definitely seems to

be some professional jealousy or academic nitpicking at each other

sometimes. But Lovaas does have the studies out, so researchers and

practitioners in VB style should work to publish their own studies as

well - that would be the biggest help to us who are trying to get

quality ABA programs set up and (maybe someday) paid for by the

schools. It would also give more credence to their claims.

VB could also use some more specific " how to " books or videotapes to

illustrate the nuts-and-bolts of setting up and running the program.

I have a few comments interspersed below:

<snip>> Our teaching techniques were all wrong. We were mired in

>no,no prompts, spending more time taking data than teaching and

>didn't adequately pair ourselves and our therapists with

>reinforcement.

This is very true, but more arises because of poor training or

advice,

rather than being a characteristic of Lovaas-style programs. A good

ABA consultant should address all of these problems, whether VB or

Lovaas-style. FOr instance, Autism Partnership (Leaf and McEachin)

have always advocated for errorless learning rather than no-no

prompts.

>Of course, such programs with their " five steps to >mastery " and

>fairly rigid rules came about because it was believed to be much

>easier to export a set of rules to parents and therapists who lack

>5-10+ years of experience and academic training than to teach them

the actual science. Kind of a snotty attitude when you think about

it, but typical.

Well, it is harder to train some people in scientific principles than

to give them a cookbook type list or way to do it, it's hard overall

to find therapists, and some people just don't get the theory. And

the VB method of jumping around very quickly and keeping a running

dialog going is tougher - and a couple of my folks can't really do

it.

They are trying, and getting better, but it takes time and

dedication

to my son and his program. Teenagers and college students sometimes

have other priorities.

>

> Language programming in the " traditional " ABA programs, tends to

>consist entirely of tacting. <snip>>Almost all the language that

>gets tested is in the form of tacting. So what happens? Two years

>into an ABA program you get a child who tests " normal " on the

>diagnostic tools but doesn't have any (or little) functional

>language.

This is a really valid criticism at least in the beginning programs.

The tacting in VB fills a big hole there. But again, a good " Lovaas "

program is not just tacting once you get to the intermediate and

advanced levels. WH questions are part of a good program, as well as

pronouns, preps, etc. And social skills training requires

conversational modeling, for example. One thing Lovaas said that

people often forget or overlook is that you should start generalizing

and getting away from the table 3-6 months max after starting a

program (depending on the child's progress). People who think Lovaas

is sitting at a table, drilling the same thing over and over again ad

nauseum have no idea what a good program looks like.

> Moreover, where do all these rules about the number of skills,

>words, etc. that need to be " mastered " before moving onto the next

>program come from?

Rigid rules about mastery are just as bad as rigid rules about

anything else.

I speculate some of it arose because in an academic/scientific

atmosphere, you need really strict objective measures to show

progress, so in the original studies, they formulated these criteria

to show that the kids really did learn the stuff. The studies have

to

withstand extraordinary amounts of criticism and scrutiny. Or if you

had to go to court to get an ABA program for your child, you would

want really rock-solid indisputable data to show that it was working.

But I could also play devil's advocate and say, so if you don't use

the " 90% across different therapists for several days " , how do you

really know if your kid knows something? Because he uses it

spontaneously all the time? That's great, but what if it is

something

that doesn't necessarily happen alot. Or what if they don't do it

outside the home? My kid does need some repetition to learn some

things, too, so having him repeat a drill a few times to make sure he

knows it isn't a bad thing, and checking to see that all the

therapists get the same response is also prudent in our case.

> I, for one, am not a believer in " razoring in " VB programs. It

>won't work unless the general format of your program is already

>errorless. If you are already doing errorless teaching and are

using

>your most powerful reinforcers at the table (the one's he'll tantrum

>for and you've been afraid to use), it might be possible. I say

this

>because we tried it, and while in the short run Grant made sizeable

>gains, in the long run it failed miserably.

> For us the failure happened on the reinforcement side. " Go play "

or

>a toy wasn't going to cut it and social reinforcement is time

>consuming as we upped the difficulty level.

Well, as I said every kid is different, so perhaps your sample of one

isn't appropriate for everyone :-). We were already moving to

errorless learning, and my kid loves certain toys and social

reinforcers, as well as those darn jellybeans. He adores all his

therapists, too, and likes working. SO I think we had already done a

pretty good job of making his therapy reinforcing :-).

>

> Data, I believe, also provides a false sense of structure for

therapists and parents. In our case the therapists openly admitted

they were attached to the " book " and felt lost without it. In the

beginning we tried to take data, but that tends to result in poor

teaching in the form of falling into the rut of running " programs. "

They'd do tacting, and take data, then FFC and data, then categories,

and take data. A conversation doesn't move that way does it? Data

slows your pace of instruction. If you're aiming for 25-30

> responses per minute, are you ever going to reach a minute of

teaching? And, if the goal is hundreds, if not thousands of

responses

between reinforcement, how many responses can you realistically keep

track of? The need for data, not the child's needs/capabilities is

then driving your program. Mind you, we still take data, but it is

targeted very specifically to immediate goals we want to attain and

we

only probe. It's much better to run a probe first thing in the

morning throwing stuff into 'yes' and 'no' piles for ten minutes

> and then get on with teaching is better than stopping every minute

to record responses.

The criticism about data is absolutely valid - again I think this

originally came from needing the studies to have tons of data to

defend and show the kid's progress when all the criticism came around.

Probing once a day and taking data on specific problems only is the

way to go.

> I still have trouble with the notion that VB intensive programs

have

>a " lack of structure. " Nothing could be further from the truth.

The

>only difference in this type of teaching is that instead of

>presenting discrete tasks serially, you are presenting them mixed

>together.

Yes, but this makes it more complex and confusing, and you can't

script it out because your next question often depends on a child's

response, or something they pick out to start talking about. You can

provide cues for items, but you do have to think on your feet alot

more. It reminds me of " stream of consciousness " , and to me IS less

structured, which can be a good thing.

>Looking back, since we felt the same way, we were really just making

>an excuse for therapists who had become prompt dependent on the

>program book. And, as difficult as it is to say this, (please don't

>flame me for this) to blame the child in any way he can't handle the

>lack of structure, etc) is to really make excuses for poor teaching.

> I say this because we used to do that. If Grant struggled he was

>bored or something else. In the end the problem was us as teachers.

> We'd either killed reinforcers, didn't have powerful enough

>reinforcers, or had lapsed into poor teaching techniques. You and

>the therapists have to check your egos at the door and take on all

>the responsibility for the child's progress. Every time Grant was

>having trouble, we, not his autism, were to blame. Of course, some

>kids have some very real limitations based on neurology and those

are

>real obstacles. The point is the teacher, not the student need to

be

>the focus when problems occur.

Who said I was blaming my child? I certainly never said that. I

said

he became confused when we tried to start mixing up the intraverbals

and RFFC's, and throwing stuff at him that he was not familiar with.

I certainly think he is capable of learning it. Since our VB

consultant was the one doing the drills at this point, it wasn't me

or

my therapists. I know that my son has to learn the underlying

classes

and components of the RFFCs/intraverbals before we can start throwing

them at him like that. I just went to a Sundberg conference and he

mentioned spending more time on these components as well.

And as far as that crack about " checking your ego at the door " - it

is

uncalled for. I know my son is capable of learning just about

anything if it is presented properly for him to learn it. Believe

me,

I have very high expectations of my kid, and no ego about myself or

the therapists - I know everything is my fault, and I suffer lots of

guilt that I can't devote every waking hour to the program.

>In retrospect, taking the time out of training the therapists for at

>least a month at team meetings and having them practice on each

other

>would have been a very wise investment before ever implementing

>anything with Grant.

Who has this luxury? You are obviously one of the lucky ones who

actually have Vince as a consultant, so you are extremely fortunate.

>

> I'm sorry to preach or sound harsh.

Well, you were doing OK until that last paragraph! :-)

>

> You're all doing good work, and the best indicator is you're taking

the time to learn and make yourselves better as parents and teachers.

>

> Mark Cyr

> Grant's dad.

And we have to think critically as parents, and look at every type of

program, and decide what works best for our kids, whether it be VB or

Lovaas-style or a combination of both.

Respectfully,

Barb

[Guest guest]

Listers,

First of all, none of my comments on this thread were meant to be directed at

any one person and should not have been viewed as a personal attack. In no

way was that my intent. To some degree they reflected my frustration of

following multiple threads on multiple lists that seem to all point to some

very basic issues.

Along the same line....I purposefully left out Dr. Lovaas' name from the

discussion since in no way did I want to disparage him or the good work done

by him and his associates at UCLA. Nor, have I ever heard Vince disparage

him, and in fact he is usually quick to point out the successes enjoyed by

Dr. Lovaas. What he does note is what I would call the " Coke " affect. Dr.

Lovaas did the pioneering work and in a sense his name has now became the

generic name for ABA therapy. So, while there are literally hundreds of

colas, many people ask for a " Coke, " So it is with ABA. The fact of the

matter is there are dozens of people out there claiming ties to UCLA or

" Lovaas " who have never set foot on the campus of UCLA or been certified for

that matter who are passing themselves off as behavioral consultants. Some

are no better than well educated (perhaps) lead therapists. Unfortunately,

not all parents are as well informed as the ones on this list or even have

access to resources such as this to become better educated. Most of us are

never fortunate enough to see a " good " ABA program given the severe shortage

of consultants. Unfortunately, I think Dr. Carbone takes a lot of flack for

trying to fill that void with his workshops. Hey, there are people out there

claiming to have been " trained directly by Dr. Carbone " or even worse,

" certified by Dr. Carbone. " None of it is true unless you're talking about

Cherish s or Holly , who are CBAs (and excellent ones at that) in

their own right.

No, Dr. Carbone is not a God, a miracle worker or anything else. He never

uses the words cure or recovery (I've actually heard of a consultant

guarantee they can " cure " your kid if you give them two years) We've

disagreed with him on more than one occasion. Will my son be ' " recovered? "

Probably not. Has he made great gains? Yes. Does Dr. Carbone believe he

has something to offer all kids...yes, he does. Does he deny the success of

kids in Lovaas directed programs, no. Does he have his difficult children,

very much so, and in my original post I cautioned that the neurology of some

kids makes it difficult to teach in some cases regardless of methodology.

Lord knows Grant has frustrated him on more than one occasion.

The studies are out there on VB, both in JABA and AVB (both peer reviewed

journals, the litmus test in academic circles). Indeed, there is over

twenty-five years worth of research that has been published. It simply

hasn't received the attention. Indeed, how many studies outside of Dr.

Lovaas' have many of you read? I'm as guilty as the next person. I sort of

stopped after that one and some others that helped support the efficacy of

home programs after I got what I wanted in my son's initial IEP. My wife is

exploring becoming a consultant and now has a reading list worthy of the one

I plowed through for my comps in history. Somehow, I think words like

" recovery " and " indistinguishable " are much more exciting than looking at

response times and long term retention. When you get down to it, that is

really what it's all about isn't it? It's about this hard to define thing

called " recovery. " Why else would anyone read the Lovaas study? If he'd

said the children in the control group had simply gained functional language,

would any of us be talking about him right now? Perhaps. Dr. Lovaas is a

fantastic behaviorist and he's done work that has altered the lives of

hundreds of children for the better...I think we all agree on that and I

don't believe any of us on this list would disparage him in any way.

I do want to make another distinction that is frequently misunderstood.

While you use errorless teaching to facilitate verbal behavior, verbal

behavior is NOT errorless teaching. Barb was right to point out the Autism

Partnership's use of errorless. Errorless, however, is difficult for the

average therapist to master since it involves the manipulating of

reinforcement and prompting on a trial by trial, moment by moment basis.

When I asked our former consultant about it she dismissed it as too difficult

for even grad students in ABA to do well. I know of four children right now

fully integrated into schools without diagnoses who went through no, no

prompt. I also know at least a dozen parents facing behavioral problems at

the table that are to some degree induced by poor teaching. Recently, I have

had several " veterans " (2+ years of ABA) contact me and express concern about

the lack of functional language and initiation in their children. As a

member in the local FEAT organization I visit with lots of parents and see

quite a few programs, so my sample is something larger than one.

On the subject of therapists. Are they tough to find? Well, here in the St.

Louis metro area I am competing with at least 140 families doing in home ABA

programs. No, I cannot fill a full 40 hours. But then, I learned the hard

way it wasn't worth it if I didn't have topnotch therapists. Grant does far

better on 20 great hours a week than on 40 mediocre. All of my therapists

are students or have other full time jobs. When they go through the initial

interview they get the riot act. Basically I tell them that while they may

think it's a job, it's Grant's life. This is not a Christmas job at the Gap.

(No offense to Gap employees). Most are mature enough to back out at that

point if they think this is more of a commitment than they want.

Back to data. I still think this whole structure debate is a chimerical one.

If you had started doing errorless, mixing and varying, and it was all you

knew, would this be an issue? You would see the structure in it. You would

know that you can't teach an object as an RFFC until it was a strong tact.

You would know then to make an FFC to intraverbal transfer. You would

understand the underlying structure. If " mastery " consists of responses are

clear, quick and loud (these criteria are Grant's, different children may

have different criteria) across two therapists for two straight morning

probes then that would qualify as mastery for you. Since without all the

data taking you can easily get 3,000+ responses a day during intensive

teaching sittings, you go through everything (Acquisition, maintenance) at

least once a day. If something needs to be prompted, it's thrown into a

stack for more intensive review. By the way, there is a study on that dating

all the way back to 1968 that shows quite convincingly that long term

retention is tied directly to strength and speed of response. Barb raises a

valid point, however, in that in some cases the insatiable need of school

districts for data drives the need for it. In those cases I would suggest a

tool like the ABLLS be adopted and given once a quarter to track the child's

progress or use another mutually agreed upon evaluation tool. Trial by trial

data, outside of a scientific study, is pretty much useless to the average

family I would argue.

Where I seem to have raised the most hackles is the discussion of blaming the

child or the teacher. Admittedly, it is something that I have become quite

passionate about. Barb, I apologize if you took it as a personal attack.

I'm sorry, it was not meant to be. What I quite inarticulately was trying to

say was that an important distinction exists when you say " Grant can't do

that because of his autism, or he's bored, etc. " versus saying " Grant hasn't

learned to do that because of poor teaching. " In the first instance, the

child is the root of the problem, and in a sense he'll have to supply the

solution. In the second, the solution can be found by altering the teaching.

That is not to say that even with excellent teaching technique, one child

might take three trials, another three thousand trials. (or in one of Vince's

cases, 10,000 trials) Yes, each child is different. I wouldn't deny that. If

the kid is " bored " for example, what is the solution? Does he just have to

work through it? (As our former consultant counseled) The teacher is then

passive when the child's lack of performance can be found in the child

himself. Tricky kids do exist (I have one of them) but it just means we have

to work hard to find the most effective means of teaching him. I guess I

avoid the guilt (though not always a sense of depression) because I know I'm

doing the best I can with the knowledge I possess. As long as I remain

dedicated to doing my best, there isn't much else I can do is there? But I

will never blame Grant, and my typical kid's teachers aren't particularly

fond of us either, until they find out what we ask them to do works.

Moreover, I'm convinced that in 75% of the cases, a child's

non-responsiveness is rooted in improper teaching killing reinforcers.

Vince argues that boredom exists in the reinforcer, not the task. So while I

might be pushed to tears myself if asked to pull on a handle attached to a

blank wall for several hours, if you attach that lever to a slot machine, I'm

hooked. Also, since I never know when that slot machine will reinforce me

(variable reinforcement schedule) I'm really hooked. If I knew that after

every ten pulls I'd get reinforced, (a fixed reinforcement schedule like in

most traditional programs) it would get pretty boring. But, if it's the

next pull once, then twenty, then four, then 100 pulls, I'm much more

interested. Once again, easy in theory, and like the bad dieter I am

sneaking a midnight snack out of the fridge, occasionally I catch myself

saying that Grant is bored.

By the way, our " traditional " program was very successful. Grant had about

250 expressive object labels at the time we switched, and probably many many

more receptive. He'd blown through VI, NVI, Receptive commands, block

imitation, puzzles, matching, shapes, colors, alphabet, could count to 33,

knew the rooms of the house, could pretend to be 12 different creatures,

could label his body parts and was starting prepositions and pronouns. So,

why did we switch? HE WAS NOT TALKING. Not even close. Also, he was

starting to cry at the table despite all the reinforcers and a troop of cute

college girls who adored him and gave him tons of social reinforcement. We

were also noticing that things weren't retained for very long. We ended up

having to remaster everything.

Funny, in my dissertation on 19th century political culture, I'm exploring

some of these same issues....how Americans struggled within their new

pluralistic society to either attempt to forge a new consensus or simply

" agree to disagree. " Life imitates art.

Mark Cyr

Grant's dad.

Autistic children are not learning disabled, they are teaching challenges.

[Guest guest]

Nice post! Comments below.

>Language programming in the " traditional " ABA programs, tends to consist

>entirely of tacting. Did you ever wonder why? I have a hunch it is

>because

>of the nature of diagnostic tests. On the surface, it makes no sense for a

>kid who can't ask for juice when he's thirsty to complete a 48 piece puzzle

>or be able to imitate 30+ block movements. Unless of course, you are

>having

>them evaluated every 4-6 months against the diagnostic tests. Almost all

>the

>language that gets tested is in the form of tacting.

Also, this had been and has been the recommendation by many linguists.

So what happens? Two

>years into an ABA program you get a child who tests " normal " on the

>diagnostic tools but doesn't have any (or little) functional language.

>Moreover, where do all these rules about the number of skills, words, etc.

>that need to be " mastered " before moving onto the next program come from?

>When I think how much time we wasted because of poor teaching that

>artificially slowed Grant's rate of acquisition because a set of rules said

>we needed to " master " a task before moving on I want to scream. Instead of

>taking three weeks to get through all the motor imitation it could have

>been

>three hours. (And only our lead therapist probing him through 22 different

>skills one evening saved us from even more time wasted)

We are constantly finding better teaching techniques. Many of the

discoveries that we've made and that are currently put into practice will be

replaced by more effective strategies. It was believed that mand training

was where all language training should begin for individuals with language

impairments. This was prompted by all the research with individuals that

had developmental disabilities. However, in the 80's, some research

indicated that for some individuals that suffered traumatic brain injuries,

tact training was required prior to mand training. This is mentioned to

illustrate that discoveries are tentative, and we must be ready to let go of

a belief when we are presented with evidence that is contrary to those

earlier beliefs.

>

>This is not to argue the point made so well by Rhonda that there are

>important pre-cognitive skills that are taught in all ABA programs. I have

>a

>study floating around the house that show how important the early

>acquisition

>of imitative skills is. That said, if you watch Vince work with children

>in

>his videos he usually starts by assessing a childs imitative repetoire,

>both

>motor and vocal. If you teach properly (mix and vary) imitation never

>leaves

>your program. And like Melinda, we've watched Grant with awe at school as

>he

>picks up the social cues provided by other children. (Though we have the

>opposite problem of Grant blurting out answers without raising his hand and

>waiting to be asked.) Safety can be taught within a verbal program.

>Names,

>addresses and phone numbers can be taught using the same techniques used to

>teach and expand categories. During your natural environment teaching (50%

>of your program) you can work on self help and life skills using the very

>same techniques used to get your child to the table in the first place.

>Since Verbal Behavior IS part of ABA that shouldn't be an issue. I guess

>the

>lack of discussion of other programs is lacking on the list because the

>verbal behavior components are so novel that most people have lots of

>questions on those...but that doesn't mean the other skills aren't still

>being taught by those of us doing programs that are verbal intensive.

>

>I, for one, am not a believer in " razoring in " VB programs. It won't work

>unless the general format of your program is already errorless. If you are

>already doing errorless teaching and are using your most powerful

>reinforcers

>at the table (the one's he'll tantrum for and you've been afraid to use),

>it

>might be possible. I say this because we tried it, and while in the short

>run Grant made sizeable gains, in the long run it failed miserably. For us

>the failure happened on the reinforcement side. " Go play " or a toy wasn't

>going to cut it and social reinforcement is time consuming as we upped the

>difficulty level.

>

>Data, I believe, also provides a false sense of structure for therapists

>and

>parents. In our case the therapists openly admitted they were attached to

>the " book " and felt lost without it. In the beginning we tried to take

>data,

>but that tends to result in poor teaching in the form of falling into the

>rut

>of running " programs. " They'd do tacting, and take data, then FFC and

>data,

>then categories, and take data. A conversation doesn't move that way does

>it? Data slows your pace of instruction.

This is true. Also, data is only as good as it changes our behavior such

that we are more effective in our teaching. Placing symbols on a piece of

paper in and of itself is a waste of time. This should not be interpreted

that data is meaningless. Data provides the information necessary for

effective teaching. Awhile back there was a thread that addressed the

misconceptions of ABA. Related to that issue are the misconceptions about

data taking and how it must be done. It goes beyond the scope of this reply

to address all the issues with data collection (e.g., How it is guided by

the questions we ask; the many ways in which to take data; etc.).

If you're aiming for 25-30

>responses per minute, are you ever going to reach a minute of teaching?

>And,

>if the goal is hundreds, if not thousands of responses between

>reinforcement,

>how many responses can you realistically keep track of? The need for data,

>not the child's needs/capabilities is then driving your program. Mind you,

>we still take data, but it is targeted very specifically to immediate goals

>we want to attain and we only probe. It's much better to run a probe first

>thing in the morning throwing stuff into 'yes' and 'no' piles for ten

>minutes

>and then get on with teaching is better than stopping every minute to

>record

>responses.

>

>I still have trouble with the notion that VB intensive programs have a

> " lack

>of structure. " Nothing could be further from the truth. The only

>difference

>in this type of teaching is that instead of presenting discrete tasks

>serially, you are presenting them mixed together. Looking back, since we

>felt the same way, we were really just making an excuse for therapists who

>had become prompt dependent on the program book. And, as difficult as it

>is

>to say this, (please don't flame me for this) to blame the child in any way

>(he can't handle the lack of structure, etc) is to really make excuses for

>poor teaching.

Very important point! Too often the blame is placed on the student for not

learning (e.g., " He has a processing problem; " " She's not ready to learn; "

" He probably can not sense (some feeling), and therefore will not be able to

do X; " " She is bored with this program. " etc.). In the absence of finding

actual damage, the more appropriate way to frame the issue is, " I have not

yet found how to teach X. "

I say this because we used to do that. If Grant struggled he

>was bored or something else. In the end the problem was us as teachers.

>We'd either killed reinforcers, didn't have powerful enough reinforcers, or

>had lapsed into poor teaching techniques. You and the therapists have to

>check your egos at the door and take on all the responsibility for the

>child's progress. Every time Grant was having trouble, we, not his autism,

>were to blame. Of course, some kids have some very real limitations based

>on

>neurology and those are real obstacles. The point is the teacher, not the

>student need to be the focus when problems occur. In retrospect, taking

>the

>time out of training the therapists for at least a month at team meetings

>and

>having them practice on each other would have been a very wise investment

>before ever implementing anything with Grant.

>

>I'm sorry to preach or sound harsh. Trust me, if there's an error to be

>made

>or a way to screw up the transition...we did it. But, it was still the

>best

>thing we ever did. Through it all we learned never to doubt the sources of

>problems, and their solutions, lay in the teaching. Today, we got 42

>spontaneous initiations with classmates today at school (see Barb, we still

>take data), something we wouldn't have dreamed of a year ago. Actually,

>you

>guys are the first to hear it, and I was all set to hear his aide come home

>and report a zero.

Congratulations!

>

>You're all doing good work, and the best indicator is you're taking the

>time

>to learn and make yourselves better as parents and teachers.

hear hear!

Best wishes,

Liu-Constant, M.S.Ed., Ed.S candidate

Intensive Special Needs PK-12

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.