VB/ABA semantics

[Guest guest]

As always, Cate wrote a well-thought out message. However, I think the real

trouble ABA has is too many poor practitioners. When I went to my original ABA

provider and said, " Look at this new evolution of ABA, let's do this, " the

response was, " We're already doing that. " Of course, that wasn't really the

case. They forced me to make the distinction between ABA and VB and then

proceeded to clarify the matter for the rest of the parents they served by

publishing a memo delineating the differences. Unfortunately, the poor

practitioners locally cause us to clarify VB from ABA just to get the attention

of other preschools. I have representatives from seven local schools and

preschools attending a VB conference in two weeks. None of them would have

showed up for an ABA conference, I assure you. ABA has a bad reputation caused

by the lousy practitioners. The only major developmental preschool in the area

NOT sending a representative is the school that uses the Pyramid approach

(PECS). And for those of you not yet informed of the Pyramid approach (PECS),

it is a most-to-least prompting ABA based approach. The SLP provider for my 18

month old has been using the Pyramid approach sans the picture cards for the

last 9 months with my child and didn't have to alter anything but the data

sheets to switch to VB. Likewise at my Greenspan based preschool, the good

teachers already used many of the language building strategies that Carbone, et

al clarified so well. I have come to realize that all these workshops really

help us to become good teachers, and to help good teachers teach more

effectively. I wish we could all just show up at our IEP meetings and say, "

I'd like a really good teacher to work really hard and long with my child to

build language skills using the most effective techniques " and all get what we

wanted. Playing with semantics won't solve the shortage of good teachers for

our children, and if the Dr's McGreevy, Carbone and Sundberg can excite people

to attend seminars and become better teachers, I don't care what they call

it...as long as it has people queing up. Unfortunately, I am sure there are or

will be several lousy VB practitioners as well.

As long as I am ranting, why should anyone be afraid to admit using therapies

as well respected as floor time (Greenspan)? There is good developmental

teaching there and many people including the National Academy of Sciences in

their recent review of autism educational programs, recognize that naturalistic

behavioral language models mesh quite well with developmental models such as

Greenspan's as well as PECS. My son has started to move beyond parallel play

and develop some great imaginative play scenarios with Greenspan techniques.

Why hold allegiance or scorn for a " brand " of teaching technique? If it works,

use it. If it doesn't work, modify it. Call it whatever you want, just do it

well. For kids that need PECS, don't be afraid to send them to Pyramid

programs--they do it well. On a last note, I've read the results of the

Koegels' research, but I'd like to read about their techniques specifically.

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of their teaching protocols? Or must

one travel to CA? How does one get in touch with them? t Burk

pentaburks@...

" Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence " (except, perhaps, an

open mind)