Research

[katkin]

The last few years that I've been working with SEN children we have been told very specifically not to force eye contact. Especially when I was working in a residential school for children with autism and SLD this was the case. Nobody I worked with had any problem with this; some children would look, some would not, some would initiate after a while and they had got to know you, some would not ever. I was under the impression that current thinking was not to force but from reading this it seems i was wrong!

The school I am at now it has been a joy to see the two youngest children gradually become more used to the staff and surroundings that they will now initiate eye contact and games on their terms. One girl will now pull you down to her level, shake her head and vocalize, the staff member copies this and a great time is had; she will now give "kisses" and cuddles too. This is all on her terms and when she breaks contact the game ends. Her behaviours and frustrations have eased and she is learning to communicate with pecs. This is all done at her pace.

Today for the first time the boy initiated contact with me through a game of "raspberries". Laughing and looking at me for more. Again when he had had enough the game ended.

 

My only other bugbear Primine is could the small people be children and not kids! Or is this me being a fussy old pedant?! (Maybe I should not ask that!!) Love Kat

[Zemanski]

Hi Kat,

 

sorry if the 'kids' label offends you, but at the freeschool I worked at the kids voted to be kids because they didn't like the lower status/lack of respect they felt the word 'children' gave them (they were very insistent about it) so I generally use kids because that's what I got used to, although I do sort of mix and match now after having been back in mainstream a while.

 

Also if you are including teenagers they prefer not to be reminded that they are still children

 

lovely to hear your stories, there is something so satisfying about small people responding like that.

 

you've made me all conscious about what I call them now

 

Zemanski

[katkin]

Sorry Zemanski, my son tells me i am an irascible old pedant and for you all to ignore me!! Teenagers I have worked with were always"young people" - young ladies - young men. In post 16 care often S.S will refer to as "clients" which annoys me more because I think S.S are not seeing people, real people with lives and feelings, but someone more anonymous. i suppose it's the slangy Americanism of "kids" that I don't like.

Yes it was a lovely day at work. Great to see B start a game with me - one of those moments when you know it's all worthwhile doing the job - sees you through the dark days. Sorry really off topic now so will go. Kat

[Alphazebra]

Just picking up on a point that barefoot wend made:

I can see your point of view but I still have problems with it. To my way of thinking it is still an attempt to make children with asd fit in. There's no particular problem with this per se but I'm still not comfortable with the idea of trying to change the child rather than the society.

Does anyone really believe that society can be changed to deal with ASD individuals effectively? To my mind society is dumb. You have one peron on there own and they can be smart. Put several of these people together and you have a group that can do a lot of good. Multiply that up to the scale of society and I think you end up with mass stupidity. (Thats just my opinion). I can understand to a certain degree where Primine comes from when he talks about:

It?s an effort to teach them the rules, norms and boundaries.

because lets face it attempting to teach that to a number of ASD individuals is far easier than what we all want. When it comes down to it, its not the job of professionals in those kind of jobs to change the world anyway, they can only do what they are involved with. I would love to have a situation where ASD individuals can stim to their hearts content in whatever way and in whatever situation. The problem is we are in the minority and maybe that is something that we have to accept to a certain degree.

[Zemanski]

all of us have to find our place in society, stupid though it may be, but somewhere along the line there is a limit to how far you can ask anyone to conform. Unfortunately that limit can be pretty high - some pretty horrific things are done to people around the world in the name of society and government and people just go along with it.

 

There are some things I wouldn't want my children to conform to whether they were autistic or not.

 

Society can be changed though, it's just a very long slow process. Look at our reaction to Lovaas and his experiments with homosexuality - when he did those experiments he would have been lauded for saving those kids from a fate worse than death, a few years on and we see it as an infringement of human rights and just as abhorrent as people at that time considered homosexuality.

Lots of people still hold those views and discriminate against homosexuals but mostly they keep pretty quiet about their feelings except amongst like minded friends (and none of them is my friend). Homosexuality is no longer a crime, discrimination is.

 

My mum was the first under-fives officer in the country. After setting it all up in her authority, she went out and trained in other authorities. She was so committed to changing the way social services provided for under-fives, particularly for SEN kids. Now every authority in the country has under-fives officers in some form or other (don't think they're called that often now though) and any LEA without at least the standard service would be slated by ofsted.

 

last week I had an idea that was picked up by the ASD advisor, it is already in her training package and I know for a fact that it's being passed around social inclusion so soon it will be LEA wide.

How long will it be before it is country wide?

Things do change if we fight hard enough, long enough and use the right people to take up our cause.

 

sometimes though it just seems like it's never going to get anywhere near enough.

 

Zemanski

[something vague]

Katkin,

 

Your day sounds similar to mine! The kids that I work with are autistic teenagers with SLD. I spend a lot of time delighting in these tiny points of contact. Sometimes I think my collegues wonder what I'm raving about.

 

On the subject of Social Service terminology, some of our young people get respite in a residential home and the home school book contains references to S.U - service user urgh and on one occassion AMOS - this puzzled us for a while, who's Amos and why do the children play with him so much? It turned out to be A Member of Staff . I thought that was quite funny.

 

I know it must be difficult to agree on the best way to refer to young people (YP - that's another one) and I expect that staff will be told which terms are appropriate but it does take the individual out of the person (in my opinion).

 

Hope you have another good a day tomorrow.

 

SV

[littlenemo]

the trouble with the term 'young people' for me is that it reminds me of the salvation army, now there's an organisation that really has a thing about conformity.

 

Both my parents were ministers!

 

probably why I have a natural aversion to conformity

 

(just a personal take)

 

Zemanski

[katkin]

Something Vague, will certainly have a good day - it's my day off I am going to indulge in some serious retail therapy!

Zemanski, not very good at conformity myself So really that's why I would like us to be able to use names so each person is exactly that - an individual person. But we have to use collective nouns maybe we should invent some new ones!

A "clot" of doctors. That's to start!

kat

[bid]

I work in a residential setting with young people from 16 to 19 (severe epilepsy and associated special needs including autism).

 

The formal term we use is 'students', but informally it tends to be 'lads' and 'girls'...

 

Bid

 

I hate the term 'client'!

[Zemanski]

A 'study' of students, or is that a 'stud farm' when they hit adolescence

 

Zemanski

[Lucas]

Just to add something here: Autistics by default do NOT have any problem understanding or obeying rules. What is the common cause which prevents them doing so is often the inconsistency of other people. We've seen Jo Frost and Tanya Bryon on TV and how they work: I have NEVER seen them tell the kids what to do, they are modifying the parent's behaviour, not the kids. The kids just follow through when they are in an anti-confusion, anti-hostile, anti-disturbing enviroment.

 

Same goes for Autistics. I certainly never understood why other kids in school were allowed to be as weird, loud, disruptive, aggressive and lazy as they liked, but the same rules didn't seem to apply to me. No wonder I didn't say a word until I was six! I may have thought I wasn't allowed to speak either!

 

Is it easier for Autistics to modify their behaviour in this way than it is for society to do so? Well not for the Autistics it isn't, aren't we considered 'society' anymore? Was it really so hard for society to give up hating gays? Would it have been easier for gays to stop being gay(and become homophobes like in the femine boys project)? What makes it so hard to do the same for Autistics?

 

Mr Spock once said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Please bare in mind how old Star Trek was. In a later series where he had a cameo he recanted on it, logically balancing it with the fact that a a majority of people is far more likely to have a wider range of needs than a select group and the energy-consumption of meeting those needs would far outdo in proportion the needs of a few, which tend to be common needs as they are after all in a minority group for a common reason.

 

So why is it ok to expend a vast amount of time, energy, money and resources catering to the needs of the many out of proportion to the majority's actual size yet hop from one foot to the other when it comes to a minority?

 

One day the minority I belong to will turn round to the majority and say:

 

"Women, we don't care about women's rights anymore unless they're women from our group. Jews, the holocaust was exaggerated, we don't actually know this but you whine so much about even the smallest thing it proberley is exaggerated. Fathers, you're absent and no you don't have the right to see your children, their rights come first. Homosexuals, if we have to remain afflicted, so do you, you're as disgusting as we are. White Middle-Class people, you did not actually work hard for your comfortable life, other people did and you played the system like any benefits cheat that you always seem to complain about. We're saying all these things because if you don't care about or fight for our rights majority, we don't care and won't fight for yours. Goodbye."

 

And in the end no one has no rights at all when society starts making excuses not to spend the meager resources it would require to one group's needs, but can disproportionately serve the needs AND cravings of it's elite.

[Alphazebra]

Lucas, do you think that Autistic individuals don't get the necessary help they need because they are thought of in this way:

you're as disgusting as we are

or do you think that it is more to do with the fact that the people who get to make the decisions aren't Autistic and have no idea either what is involved and/or what is needed. I have to say my faith in people is low in general and I worry a lot about why things aren't as I feel they should be. The problem is I can never understand the decisions that people make and that depresses me more. I don't get why these people don't want to be more helpful and don't seem to want Autistic individuals to prosper.

[littlenemo]

people are concerned with their own lives and their own success.

 

They are concerned with the issues that touch them and that they connect with.

 

This is a natural state of being and the ethos of our society promotes it.

 

If they aren't autistic, don't care for someone who is autistic, work with someone who is autistic or have an autistic friend, what connection do they have?

 

That is why we have to work so hard to educate people, to make autism matter to them.

 

Zemanski

[Kathryn]

I agree, littlenemo (or Zemanski, I think ). There are so many other causes competing for attention. Two years ago I would not have cared much about autism either, I suspect. Autistic people don't necessarily stand out or trigger pity or have the inherently "cute" factor which draws the attention of the casual public.

[Zemanski]

sorry I keep usurping Nemo's identity

 

we also live in a society which encourages fear - fear of terrorism, fear of disease, fear of contamination and especially fear of the unknown/difference.

 

people don't deal with fear they hide from it and try to remain ignorant.

 

they are frightened of autism, don't know how to deal with it so the tendency is for people not to even notice unless they have to - so people who are different, in any way have to fight for society's attention.

 

unfortunately that in itself can cause problems - the more positive attention a minority gets, the more the majority resents the attention/reources being directed away from them; like a three year old!

look at the thread (outrageous) about the councillor saying we're giving too many resources to disabled people and should guillotine them as they are no use to society

only yesterday someone was telling me that someone in an SS planning meeting complained that disabled people only have to say 'I want' and they get it.

 

we have many more battles ahead if we want autism to be accepted and autistic needs properly met.

 

stay strong,

 

Zemanski

[call me jaded]

But the autistic community sends out a very mixed message:

 

'I am not disabled, accept me for what I am' and 'I am disabled and need resources'

 

We have got to get united on this.

 

 

First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left

to speak out for me.

 

 

Pastor Martin Niem�ller

[Zemanski]

Nemo was quoting this last night too

 

good point about the dicotomy between meeting the needs associated with a disability and wanting to lose the disability label.

 

very confusing for all those who have no real idea of what autism is and why it is important to meet autistic needs.

 

what we need perhaps is something more along the lines of:

 

'I need to be valued for who I am as an autistic person and have my needs recognised and met in a way that allows me to lead my life in a reasonable way'.

 

sounds a bit wishy washy?

 

Zemanski

[call me jaded]

Next thing you know they'll be forcibly removing 82-year old men from political meetings for shouting 'Nonsense!' at someone in power.

[call me jaded]

'Valuing People'

 

Shame the NHS has already nabbed that phrase.

[oracle]

Next thing you know they'll be forcibly removing 82-year old men from political meetings for shouting 'Nonsense!' at someone in power.

 

I am pleased that it's not only me who thinks that this was disgusting. While most people think that Big Brother is a programme on C4 I rather think that it's for real. If they will eject an 82 your old for shouting 'Nonsense!' then my son could well be right when he tells me I am sitting there on a Government Hit List

 

Carp;e

[call me jaded]

Having been brought up with conspiracy theorists aplenty, and one or two close family members who were civil servants, of course they have a file on you, Carole.

[Zemanski]

I thought heckling was part of the political process in this country - they do enough of it in the house of commons but can't take it from the general public

 

They have a BIG file on me, very BIG

 

I had a 'misspent youth' - battle of the beanfield, blocking warrant sales for poll tax .......

 

ho hum

 

Zemanski

[Lucas]

But the autistic community sends out a very mixed message:

 

'I am not disabled, accept me for what I am' and 'I am disabled and need resources'

 

This is a HUGE distortion used against every disabled person who struggles for both their own dignity and the things they need to thrive and survive. It's a shame that disabled people should be forced according to some to choose between not being stigmatised and getting an slightly more equal oppotunity. Most disabled activists recognise and promote the social disability model, which makes it not contradictory to say you are not disabled and still declare you have specific needs.

 

Canada has many blind lawyers and there is a true story about how the power was cut off in a courthouse so the judge suspended the proceedings until the lights could be turned back on. The blind lawyer said "What, can't you people work in the dark?". The only non-disabled person in that room was clearly the blind lawyer. Should he have his Braille books, walking stick and guide dog taken away because at that moment in time it was made bluntly clear to everyone that he was equal?

[call me jaded]

How is this distorted Lucas?

[Lucas]

I thought I just explained that.

 

The distortion is a False Dilemma fallacy: where someone portrays a situation as only having two choices when there are in fact more. Here we are given either two choices, we can either not be disabled and have miserable lives or we can be disabled and get our needs met except the need not to be stigmatised. The fact that there exists a social disability model which defines a disability as a product of the enviroment is ignored: If I recieve services because I'm disabled, than I am no longer disabled when I recieve those services.

 

Like in the blind lawyer example. All the sighted people were not disabled until the point the lights cut out, but the blind lawyer was not disabled by this product of the enviroment when it happened; he did not require the specific need of sighted people- adequete lighting.

[call me jaded]

I wasn't giving an either/or choice, I was saying that both these messages (whether true or not, and there are obvious conflicts) are coming from the ASD community and that must be very confusing. We need to send a clearer message (LOL)

[Zemanski]

I think both sides of this argument are valid

 

it would be fantastic if everyone's needs could be recognised and met without a disability label and that's what we should be working towards.

 

only if people, the people with needs, stand up and say this will society pay any attention, in very much the same way as the suffragettes did before women were given the vote, and black americans did over segregation in the states.

but the attention will not be positive because what these people say makes society uncomfortable and frightened so it will try to bury its head in the sand

 

sometimes, I've noticed, it takes an 'extreme' (not saying your viewpoint is extreme, Lucas, only that society thinks it is) vocal group to get society to listen and take action and I think the effect is partly because being presented with a view that society feels is extreme people begin to adjust their attitudes, not all the way but part of the way so that society assuages it's guilt by taking a step towards the 'extreme'.

Getting the vote was only the first step towards equality for women and since then more small steps have been taken so that the situation is now much more equal for women but still not perfect. As I said, society can be changed but it is a long slow process.

 

The other side of the argument is about the confusion this causes in society - people in power (men at the time) really didn't see what all the fuss was about when women wanted the vote.

Why did women want the vote when they were comfortable being protected by their men who provided everything they needed? why did they want the burden of deciding who should lead them? isn't it better for women to just leave it to the men? Aren't women just designed for child bearing and homekeeping, they can't possibly have the brains and intelligence to of the right sort to be responsible for deciding who leads the country?

 

These same arguments can be adjusted to fit autistic/disabled people - aren't we doing all we can to make their lives 'comfortable', why should they want more? aren't their brains impaired by their disability so that they don't have the capacity to make their own decisions, what's wrong with making them for them?

society is sat there complacently thinking it is doing they right thing, thinking that all this stuff it does for disabled people is the right thing to do - respite, care homes, special education, etc. - but what it fails to realise is that it is not looking at disabled people as people with rights and responsibilities just like everyone else, but as minors, in the same way children are minors, and women were minors before they campaigned long and hard and upset everybody in their efforts to get the vote.

 

I think we need both.

 

we need an 'extreme' point of view as an ideal to move towards and that needs to be strong and immoveable, shouted out loud so people hear. This is important.

 

we also need people who are more aware and have a better understanding than the majority of both society and the needs and rights of 'disabled people', who can see society's confusion and use it to educate and nudge society in small steps towards the ideal. These are the people who gently but firmly stop society burying its head - they may not believe the 'extreme' is achievable or even right but they can see change needs to happen and if they keep on tapping away in the right places they can make society bend a little and then a little more. Because they're not shouting too loud or expressing views that throw society into such complete confusion they are seen as the voice of reason and what they are saying becomes acceptable and the first step can be taken.

 

 

if we take this as a model then there is no need to argue about which view is right - both are valid and both are needed.

 

Lucas, keep shouting about your rights and needs - the world needs to hear you - but don't get too cross with us, please, we're the ones who are trying to do the nudging, the ones who already know you should have those rights even if we don't always express ourselves as clearly, or is as defined a way, as you do.

 

Zemanski

[Lucas]

And my point Jade was that they are NOT contradictory and do not conflict. Disabled activists have been putting forward the social disability model for thirty years and laws have been passed acknowledging it, yet even they seem to get cold-feet when applying it to Autistics unless the individual is deemed 'high-functioning'(on a spectrum which has no measure).

 

All I want is what everyone else got handed to them.

[call me jaded]

I'm an active member of an information and support group for 'the disabled'. It's my experience that no-one gets handed anything.

[Lucas]

As can be seen on the No Autistics Allowed site(documenting trends and attitudes in Canada which are in the early stages here in Britain), almost every kind of disability is represented by organisations run by people of that said disability. Autism is one of the few that are not. Ethical considerations are handed to disabled people in nearly every field of research excluding Autism.

 

Other disabled people give each other a degree of consideration that is withheld from Autistics unless Autistics segregate themselves into high and low functioning. You are in an information and support group for disabled people, this may include Autism. But I have never found anywhere to go where I can get advice and support; yet Harrogate has plenty of advice centres for Dyslexia, Epilepsy, Blindness, Deafness, ADHD and every name under the sun.

 

I repeat this often enough: do not treat me like an idiot with an opinion nor a talking head speaking purely from ancedotal personal experiences. Ask any disability organisation not directly involved with Autism what their casual opinion on it is and it will be the most disrespectful, demeaning and erronous view of it you will hear outside a meeting with LEA representatives.

[call me jaded]

I don't consider you an idiot at all Lucas, far from it. I hope you don't think that my robust style of questionning is in any way personal. I admit I could be a little more diplomatic, but I come here after a hard day to let off steam.*

 

This is by far my favourite thread on the forum as we have all been able to put forward different points of view without the flaming that often goes on.

 

I agree that there is a big problem about outside perceptions of autism. Social and communication skill deficits are hardly helping. It would be better if the different factions in the autistic community were a little more united, but as Lenny Schafer says that's like trying to herd cats.

 

Anyway I shall continue to chip away at pre-conceptions.

 

 

* Yesterday my son's SEN transport failed to show up having been late every single day for 3 weeks, this gave my daughter yet another late mark at her school (and she is in tears because it's going to jeopardise the 100% attendance record that she has so set her heart on getting), my other son had a hospital appointment to get the cast on his broken arm removed so we got there just about on time and then sat around waiting for an hour, and my other daughter has been sick all night with a tummy bug that has slowly worked its way through all of us (only my eldest girl to go), the central heating boiler has packed in, the delivery of bunk beds earlier in the week was damaged and we've had kids sleeping on mattresses on the floor, and in between all this I am trying to get the redecorating finished in time for the new flooring going down. Mr Jaded breezes in at 7pm and asks why I keep letting my mobile phone battery run down: he's been trying to find out the hospital appointment went. As I type a delivery company has tried to deliver a second lot of replacement bed parts. In fact the only thing that is going to save me is

[Malika]

Hi to all

 

I have read with interest your comments I think the main problem in the society is the lack of flexibility which strangly enough is attributed to autistic people as something negatif but becomes right when it come to assess and decide to give money , the main thing is that everybody should have the right to spend time with autistic friendly professional and for long enough in order for their need to be understood; not like you have a learning disability you get some help you have social impairment you get nothing . Off course all this take time and time is money as I have been told except when it is my time ( dealing with the ignorant bunch who are suppose to work for the community) then it seems that time is not worth anything at all....

 

We cannot change the society at once but we can influence it, well the sadness of all this is that plenty people complain about lack of tolerance but everybody sees it from its own point of view but is not able to be tolerant to other people or about other matter because in fact we all a bit autistic and we find it difficult to understand other people experience . This is for the commoner then you have the very well off who click their fingers and everything is done for them as far as they can pay . Even them have big problems so I have been told I wish I could get experienced in this matter....!!!

 

In any case awarness and knowledge are the keys.

 

Malika

[Zemanski]

Lucas, I don't know Harrogate very well but I'm sure you're right about the lack of support there and about the attitude of NT disability groups to autism.

you'd think that they would have some understanding, having 'disability' in common, but most probably have just as little idea of what support you need, or how you see the world as most NT people.

 

I know, in the groups I'm part of, that we don't always do enough or in the right way but we really are trying to include autistic people, to listen to them and to give them control and responsibility within the groups where they want to take it (with support if needed) and autistic people have regularly taken committee positions in those groups.

 

The problem with most groups for you, I would think, is that they tend to be carers groups so the balance of power is in the hands of NTs. Also they are there to support carers rather than autistic people.

Just now I used the phrase 'give them control .... ' which sounds so condescending but because these groups are set up and run by NT people, largely for NT carers, this is sort of what happens (or at least it must feel like it does sometimes) - a bit like an empire handing over little countries to the indigenous population with a pat on the head. To really have power and a voice autistic people need their own groups, possibly in partnership with NTs but where their say is at least equal to start with.

 

I think we do need to move away from the carers group as the main model - one of the groups I belong to is an adult AS group (officially I don't meet the criteria to belong as I care for a child and do not have AS or autism myself but I proved myself quite good at organising and running workshops so I got invited to be on the committee for a while). We have as many autistic committee members as we can get and each one has a partner to support them if they want (I support the treasurer).

The problem we find is that although the AS people want the group to continue, for most of them they find taking the responsibility for managing it, even with the support, quite overwhelming and it creates a great deal of anxiety for some of them which they, with their difficulties with communication, often find difficult to express.

This is something we need to work on if our AS members are going to be the driving force behind the group, at the moment I'm afraid we're flagging a bit.

 

There is another group here which is entirely run by AS people.

It is simply a regular bar visit, once a month to the playhouse, no rules, no committee to run, no committment to be there, a social opportunity to be taken up as and when wanted.

This group has been going quite a while and seems, from the outside, to be pretty successful.

but it doesn't provide support to it's members except for the social opportunity and acceptance. It doesn't run events, it doesn't campaign or advertise or provide advocacy.

 

I can see we need something else as well, an autistic run group that really can speak for autistic people.

 

how would you go about organising such a group, Lucas?

 

Zemanski

[Zemanski]

I like this thread too much to let it disappear quite yet.

 

I've been thinking about II quite a lot and there is another thread on playing with toys and the fact that many of our children seem to choose very young toys and to play with younger children.

It got me thinking that children usually do the things they need to do to develop (although some need a lot of support with this) and if these children are choosing to play at a much younger level this is perhaps an indicator that they need to be at a much younger level - are they in fact taking themselves back to a level of play they can use to further their development, sort of doing II for themselves?

 

what is the value of this play for our children? How does it help them? how do we encourage it? how do we strengthen it's effect to promote a child's social communication? Do we need to take them back still further than they naturally tend to go? is this, rather, the child showing us where they need to be for II to be most effective?

 

I suppose what I'm interested in is how to use II with children at a later stage of development, specifically AS kids, how to identify where to start, etc.

 

Zemanski

[Guest flutter]

i have been thinkin about the toy stuff lately

so for years i have been buying "age and stage" approproate toys. what for i wonder?

now she does her own thing, in fact she doesn't play, not sure how average that is is a 11 year old. she does like being at my work tho, ( preschool) and "plays" well with kids much younger, but does argue with them, she can aruge and sulk with a 2 year old.

i do know that reading ( stories) has become very mixed up, she has this teenage type book she has got for school, and last week i bought Dr Seuss box set and she loves it,

so hey ho, what am i supposed to do,

( think this was rambe sorry am very tired)

C x

[oracle]

Zemanski I have never understood why there is so much emphasis placed on our children 'playing' and being with their peer group - when autism is a developmental delay? In my opnion that says it all. Developmental Delay - somethings will be late. It's not right to push our kids to be with their peer group until they have reached the same stage as theire peer group in their development.

 

I always ask my two now what they want for Christmas and Birthdays. Neither do surprises well and I never got it right anyway..

 

I don't know that we need to take them back even further? I have not given this enough thought yet to comment. But I think we need to allow them to develop at their own speed. Sure we can help that process and be there to assist when needed. But surely there is nothing to gain by forcing the issue? Because can you force the understanding?

 

My moto is now 'everything comes to she who waits'. I say this because I have found that milestone do happen with our children, but not quite when they are supposed to. We need to learn to wait and not rush the child. They usually get there in the end. Also if allowed to do so at a pace that is right for them, then they have usually gained from the experience and, in my opinion again, the most important factor will be that they have understood their journey and why they have taken it.

 

That is probably why I am not a fan of ABA.

 

Carole

[Zemanski]

play is the major tool of development for children, it is the most basic, simplest educational tool available and also the most effective. If children don't play their development is always inhibited - but even those who at first glance don't appear to play do in their own subtle ways. It is basic to learning and central to development.

 

when we were talking about intensive interaction it was about taking children, and adults, with fairly severe communication difficulties back to a level of play, usually baby type play, in which they could communicate on their level and have that communication valued in order to promote self-esteem, confidence and enjoyment of communication so that their development can begin to move on again. We talked about how sometimes we move on from certain levels of play because of our expectations, leaving a child behind when really they needed longer at that stage - we buy age appropriate toys because we expect children to play at 'age appropriate' levels when we should perhaps be thinking of toys that suit a child's developmental stage.

 

this is not about wanting children to play at any particular level, and certainly not about them having to play with peers or even with groups - the fact that so many of our children don't play with peers is just an indicator of the developmental delay in that area, it isn't necessary for that play to actually occur, in fact to force or push a child into play that they are not developmentally ready for may well be detrimental to their development putting too much stress on their communication and social skills and undermining their confidence.

This is more about how we can use play to support them in their natural development by recognising the level at which they need to play and simply helping them enjoy it more so that they get the very most out of it - that means valuing and sharing a child's play, in II terms it is allowing the child to take you into their world instead of pushing them to meet our expectations in our world.

 

I think this is the core difference between ABA and II

ABA is looking to programme a child to behave in 'appropriate' ways which includes playing with peers at their level not the child's. The play is actively taught in order to make the child take up 'developmentally normal' patterns of behaviour.

II looks at the child and values what the child offers, it uses play as the best and most effective means to encourage development. It does not force a child to act in certain ways or learn certain skills but stimulates the child's own pattern of development by helping the child feel comfortable and relaxed in their own play. The therapist encourages the child to move on but only encourages, never forces and the child is allowed the time to develop at their own rate - there is no end result and no pressure to conform.

 

As you said, Carole, there should not be pressure, development will take place if a child is allowed to learn at their own rate in a way they feel is right for them, but if we can support their play and help them enjoy it more they will learn even more from it (?)

 

if this is the case then should we be actively encouraging play at a younger level than is age appropriate and how do we recognise the right level to start with?

 

Should I just be getting down on my hands and knees with Com to play with his brio train set at 13 (which is how he chooses to play)or should I be looking even further back in his development to the things he never did like tickling games and general toddler rough and tumble (I mean he's a bit big to pretend he's a sack of potatoes and toss him over my shoulder now ) He hated these when he was little but maybe he's ready for it now and that's why he constantly pokes me then laughs hysterically - he just wants me to chase him?

 

I find the whole concept of play and development fascinating

 

Zemanski

[something vague]

Zemanski,

 

Go for it! I think that you should try tickle games and chase with Com. It doesn't have to be done in a babyish way. I think even as adults we play these games, don't we? I know I do - splash someone with water then run! - that type of thing. I think often we dont realise how much we play. It doesn't stop at a certain age. We all like to joke with each other, play tricks. I think it's the basis of most friendships. Just look at the Batcave, a bunch of adults playing. It mightn't be quite the same as tickles and chase but its purpose is the same - relief from stress, forming relationships and mutual pleasure. The only difference is that for children who are still developing socially and emotionally play is also an important part of this development.

 

To develop II with you son, maybe you could join him in the things that interest him most, really get into what he's doing. Yes, get down on your hands and knees and play Brio trains. Does he make up stories when playing trains, if so try and add to his story and really show him that you think playing trains is great because if you really get into it, you WILL think its great. I find when I do II, I can really start to see things from my play partners perspective. It is really great to suspend reality for a while and just join in.

 

Please accept my apologies if you think I'm teaching Granny to suck eggs

[oracle]

When my husband was at uni studing for his degree (Communications) he decided to do his dissertation on the subject of play. It was called 'Using play as a tool for teaching children' He has always believed that any child will learn more through play. The irony of our situation was that while he was doing his degree our two were being diagnosed with ASD

 

We use play as one of our biggest resources to home ed Matthew and it certainly does help him to learn. And we all have a good time in the teaching

 

Carole

[littlenemo]

I don't mind being taught to suck eggs, it's the ideas I'm playing with - play at my level that is

 

I was brought up in nurseries and my mum was the first under-fives officer in the country - my kids have been play-doughed to death and I still love the stuff!!!

By the time I was 12 I was helping my mum run training sessions on play for specialist SEN day-carers so this is going back to my own childhood and my earliest lessons in child development - it's good to be thinking back to that and linking it in to what I'm doing now.

 

I was in the playground waiting for Dot today when a little lad (he's 3 but has developmental delay because he has been seriously ill as a baby and is still recovering from MRSA) started grabbing my trousers while I talked to his mum. His mum started to tell him off but I did the usual 'it's OK' and trotted off to play - he was learning to control me, and direct the play the way he wanted it to go, we had a great time.

 

but what happens when a hulking great 13 year old tries it? it clashes with our expectations and we feel threatened. Not only that but do we even recognise the same invitation to play in someone this size as I was given by the 2 year old?

I'm talking generally here, not specifically about Com, thirteen year old rough and tumble can be a bit daunting and energetic for poor aged mums and it's quite hard to get your head around someone well over 5ft still being a toddler.

 

but if we realise how important it is we do it, or do we find a different form of play that we both feel comfortable with and do that instead? - if you want to play with someone learning to negotiate the pattern of that play is part and parcel of how it helps social development so I suppose that's OK if it's done sensitively without taking all the control away from the child?

 

another thought - is interactive play the most beneficial to overall development or is all play equally important?

is interactive play the glue that binds the different threads of a child's development together?

 

Zemanski