New School of Thought?

[oracle]

deleted

Edited October 30, 2006 by oracle

[nellie]

Carole,

 

I haven't heard of any new school of thought, but I have heard of a few cases recently where there has been a disagreement among professionals about the diagnosis. 'They are AS not autistic' or 'they are diagnosed high functioning autism but they are not autistic.

 

I sometimes wonder if this confusion is a deliberate attempt to cloud the waters, making access to provision more difficult. This is what happens in some cases.

 

Autism isn't something you have it is something you are. Everyone is an individual whether they are NT or autistic. I am coming to the conclusion that the only experts are autists.

 

It is 21 years since my eldest son started school, it saddens me to say that things are not much better today and in some cases worse.

 

Nellie

[ZenWolf]

This is news to me, but not surprising news. I suspect that it is coming from two different angles. The first is a need for government agencies to classify everything into their own boxes - Asperger's is not as "serious" an issue, in funding and disability terms (to their minds at least) as many other forms of Autism. I fear that the other side is a result of a number of people within the Asperger's arena who want to make it clear that Asperger's "sufferers" are not autistic in the "popular" sense of the word.

 

A further issue clouding the waters is that Borderline Personality Disorders are often misdiagnosed as Asperger's and vice versa - I was diagnosed BPD based on my social responses, before any account was taken of other symptoms that would indicate AS. BPD can be similar in symptoms, but is believed to have very different "causes". It cannot be entirely unrelated in mechanism though.

 

Frankly, there is always going to be some new theory, or some group that is trying to look at things differently. Each one brings us closer to understanding these things, even if all they do is eliminate the negative possibilities. We need to keep an eye on the though to ensure that the government doesn't see them as a good way to duck out of their responsibilities.

[ZenWolf]

Further reading:

 

http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/sare...301/000196.html

 

Haven't been able to find anything more recent than this on the net. Did find these which made interesting reading though, and offer some very different views from public and government.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...146557?v=glance (read the customer reviews)

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...xt/20712-19.htm (sorry if someone has posted this link before)

[mossgrove]

Carole

 

Pesonally, I think the Ed Psych is going s little to far in taking her own personl opinion and including it in a report as if it were established fact, especially as I'd guess making that distinction isn't going to be helpful interms of the support you get.

 

To backtrack quite a few years, once Autism had been identified, people like Hans Asperger identified children who had some of the traits of Autism but were also able to converse, learn at school, have friendships and relationships etc., albeit often with more difficulties that were faced by typically developing children, this ultimately led to the concept of Adpergers Sysndrome and also of an Autistic Spectrum of abilities and impairments which is part of mainstream thinking to this day.

 

Debate has continued all along about whether or not such children are 'Autistic', or whether the issues are simply an observed set of behaviours, so in that sense what your Ed Psych is saying is not new.

 

Current mainstream thinking is that all such conditions come under the umbrella of Autistic Spectrum disporders. In terms of the practical day-to-day issues it doesn't matter whether or not the diagnosis is one of Autism, the child has needs which must be met, and it is the Ed Psych's job to identify what those needs are, which is why adding a piece of theory to the report is not helpful, as it may be used later on to argue that certain interventions are not required because the child is not autistic, even if that was not the Ed Psych's intention.

 

 

Simon

[oracle]

deleted

Edited October 30, 2006 by oracle

[Jericho]

I agree that this sounds like an attempt to 'downgrade' AS. Already there are certain services and facilities that children/parents are unable to access because it specifies that they must be autistic (and they have a dx of AS) or that they must have AS (and they have a dx of ASD). It's a minefield.

[Lucas]

Yes, LEAs are now trying to seperate AS from Autism by being selective with who they regard as the best 'experts'. AS is now seen as a behavioural condition, not an implicit neurological one, children classed as having behavioural difficulties get the worst help.

 

Asperger's Syndrome was the term coined by Lorna Wing, she has since expressed regret at ever doing so because it led to so much confusion. Like Attwood, she agrees that the simularities far outweigh the differences.

 

Both Asperger's and Kanner's observations of their patients are strikingly similiar when you remove their value-laden comments from the equation. Most people think that Kanner's children were non-verbal, not true, he said they spoke in 'an atypical manner' same as Asperger. There were no non-verbal children in Kanner's group, non-verbalness in Autism can be traced back to when Bettlhiem was torturing children and he thought they were non-verbal because it was part of Autism and not because they were kept in developmentally impoverished enviroments.

[ZenWolf]

I think that the most frustrating thing about all this is that whilst it is clearly of scientific interest to understand how the brain works for everybody, and how it differs in some cases, this is not an appropriate way to "classify" behavioural traits with regard to everyday needs.

 

We would be far better, as a community, classifying children (and adults) by their behavioural needs, rather than whether the issue is neurological, neurochemical, or purely behavioural. I also understand the need to identify positive traits from each case, such as the Aspie movement in the case of Asperger's, but these are all just part of a general need to start celebrating the positive aspects of any individual, rather than focussing on the negatives.

 

If we could just reach a point where each child receives the support they need, as an individual, without it having to be such a damn fight all the time, then we would no longer need to focus so much on these classifications. We need less scientists and more humanists!!

[bid]

After thinking about this issue it seems to me to be more discrimination, in the sense that Autistics are being denied ownership of Autism.

 

In other words, the 'experts' decide who is 'allowed' to be 'Autistic'.

 

It is more of the same refusal to listen by the professionals.

 

Bid

[Kazzen161]

I would agree that it is probably a convenient distinction for education.

 

We were told by the LEA that EBD is a high incidence SEN, and autism is a low-incidence SEN. When we asked where AS came - we were told the LEA had to look at the child's paperwork, and if he was autistic (?) he came under autism, otherwise he came under EBD. She declined to specify what the criteria were.

 

The school gets extra money for children with a low-incidence statement, but not for those with a high incidence one.

 

Karen

[claire]

Hello I am new here, I have a son of nearly 9 who has a diagnosis of Aspergers and it is my son that the EP made the bizarre comments that are reffered to in this subject. I would really appreciate any thought on my problem and apologize in advance as it is rather long:

 

After many battles with the LEA and a near tribunal my son is in a language unit. He has very severe expressive and receptive language difficulties. His statement was amended to reflect a permenent place so this left the contents of the statement wide open. As it was previously vague, I have repeatadly challanged the LEA to specifiy and quantify in part 3 and list each and every one of his needs in part 2. I was nearly there apart from I know my son spends around 7 hours per week in a small group with the specialist SALT and I want the LEA to quantify 5. The LEA are horrified and I have the tribunal hearing in about 6 weeks. I am not so much worried about what I want and them refusing, they rest their argument on the SEN toolkit, mine is based on the education act and what case law says (although anything could happen!). However, now I have the bundle from SENDIST there is issues from there that I am not sure how to argue. For a start, there is a new statement in there that the LEA have dated January but I have not formally received, there are also comments from a pre tribunal meeting (all professionals except me attended) that have opened a whole can of worms. The Head EP who has never seen my son states that his needs are more autism than speech, but then goes on to say there is no ASD! Autism and Aspergers are not related. Then, there is a reference to an apparant short form IQ test that my son has had (I know nothing about this and have an appointment at school tomorrow) which means that he has MLD and will be a slow learner in terms of academic, social and SAL communication all throughout his life and that his needs are in line with his intelectual abilities, or better than would be expected. There has also been small changes in part 3, but significant I feel, such as the words "special educational needs" replaced with "learning difficulties" I feel that they are trying to shift the emphasis from language to MLD and are saying in other words that even with all the SALT in the world this is going to be as good as it gets so therefore no need to specify any therapy!

 

I am worried that my son is going to be labeled with something I don't think he has. I know they will have to prove what they are saying, especially as it is new and not any reports I have. I really do believe that as his communication difficulties are severe that this would hold a barrier up to any child learning, just as Aspergers can. I don't understand how this can be seperated (MLD), how an EP can make this judgement on a child who does have the level of Ex and Re SAL difficulties that my son does. Please don't think I am down playing his Asperger's, I am not but just feel that everything that is done in the unit addresses both and I have to say, mainly through the SALT, she is great and for the first time in a long time, my son actually likes going to school. I just don't want my son classifying as MLD and them saying all the help in the world wont make a difference.

 

Kind regards,

 

Claire

[ZenWolf]

Hi Claire

 

Firstly, welcome and thanks for the long and very detailed post. As I have not had direct dealings with LEAs regarding my daughter (my ex has handled all this, as my daughter lives with her), I cannot comment on the process. It does seem, however, that a lot of meetings and decisions have taken place without your knowledge, let alone your involvement. I am not sure what your rights are in this regard, but I would certainly be protesting strongly, in writing, to these things as soon as possible. Others here are probably better able to advise on your actual legal rights and any other action you may take.

 

It seems to me that so many parents and children get caught in the crossfire of different opinions, personal crusades, funding issues and politics. I'm going to get a reputation here for keep repeating this, but the sooner there is a standard policy, with effective assessment guidelines, that allow children to be "classified" by their actual needs, the better. If a child responds well to a certain type of support then they should be entitled to it, regardless of its long term benefits. We can argue back and forth about neurological and behavioural cause and effect until the proverbial cows come home, but by the time we are all agreed, the scientists will have changed their minds, or conducted more research that turns the whole thing upside-down again. None of which makes a scrap of difference to how our kids behave, or what helps them learn and be happy learning.

 

I wish you the very best of luck in resolving this, and I believe that there are many people here that will be able to advise you, or at least offer understanding and support. Please keep us informed of your progress.

 

Adam

Edited January 13, 2005 by ZenWolf

[oracle]

delete

Edited October 30, 2006 by oracle

[nellie]

Thanks Carole,

 

I have sent you a PM

 

Nellie

[claire]

Thank you Adam, they are words I think of wisdom.

 

I am sure of my legal rights, the meeting was a LEA only pre tribunal meeting, which they are entitled to have without me because it is to decide whether they will opose my appeal. I did though ask at school today what the "short form IQ test" had been and the Head did not have a clue what I was on about. Towards the end of the meeting she said that the only thing she could think of was PIVATS! All children who PIVATS are being used have their PIVAT sheets sent to the LEA. The Head was suprised and assured me this was not an IQ test, which I did know , PIVATS is just a way of measuring progress. It is interesting though that the LEA threw this information in as something it is not and this makes me wonder would SENDIST recognise PIVATS as an IQ test!! Hopefully not. I will let the forum know how I get on.

 

Thanks again,

 

Claire