[Dave Collyer]

Hi Danielle,

I would imagine that the funding being referred to is the Autism Funding thru the Individualized Funding program. If there are other funding options please let us know Michelle.

http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/autism/index.htm

[Dave Collyer]

Hi Danielle,

Sorry I don't live in your area. It was my understanding that Psych Ed assessemnts (WIAT and WISC and the like) are only good for two years. I suppose this might be different on a case by case basis. I now some local Psychologists and I will ask for some clarification if you like.

One parent I know once remarked that once you have an assessment and a level of support assigned based on that assessment NEVER have your child re-assessed unless they will score in such a way so as to obtain additional supports. I suppose the fear was/is that support is withdrawn when children "test higher". In a local school here in the Greater Victoria area I know of a child who has just had aid time reduced as a result of her doing so well… Little regard was given for the role that the aid was playing and the need to continue the support in order to continue the progress…The message I took away from that conversation was to take care when initiaiting "re-testing" requests… the product of the "re-test" might be a reduction in support levels which are, often, the very root or catalist for the child's improvment.

If you show them the quality of work your son can do now at home how do they account for it? Is it an issue of home skills and environment being more "friendly" then the classroom? Skills failing to generalize into the school?

DC.

[Dave Collyer]

Althought there are some positive aspects to the announcment to fund the private inst. there are also issues..

The immmediate issue that first struck me was centered on equity of access. Simply put many people will not be able to take advantage of this situation as private schools frequently require large tuition payments and other fees. Beyond that, support from the related fields (such SLP, OT, Psych, and PT) are not fully funded. You might find that you would need to pay out of pocket for these additional supports and assessments. A psych ed assessment might run into the thousands of dollar range. SLPs routinely charge more then I can afford. So this seems to be a good thing IF you can afford it.

I am not certain the good Minister enacted these changes due to some sort of desire to provide choice for our children. Although altruism was likely part of the equation for the Minister I think there is a budgetary management issue at the heart of the decision. By provideing the same grant levels to the private school "system" it is possible that some of our children will be withdrawn from the public system. As costs involved in provideing an educational program for our children can at times exceed the budgeted grant the public system shifts the cost to the private sector (when you factor in related serivces the grant rally does not fully cover the cost). This equates to cost savings for the local district and shifts the cost to the local private school and the parent.

Again, if you can afford it… this is a good option. It does little to address QUALITY of service in the public system. It IS partially motivated by budgetary management needs. It does NOT address equity of access issues.

[Dave Collyer]

re the Annoucment of increased funding for Private and Public Schools.

Another thought ocurs to me… I have been told by two seperate administrators that the special student grants for each special needs student given to the public school disticts often DOES NOT COVER THE COSTS of providing the limited supports that a student receives/requires. The districts often find themselves in need of dipping into general funds. If this is the case and it is true across the system then is this announcment really an effort to redirect special needs students towards the private schools and therby produce a cost savings for the public system? If the district receives approx 16,000.00 per each student classified as " Low incidence" but spends 17,500.00 it would makes sense from the Min. of Ed's perspective to redirect this additional cost (1,500.00) to the private sector and let the private school deal with it.

[Dave Collyer]

Yes that does seem to be good news for many… but many others cannot afford private school tuition so will not benefit.

In addition, the annoucement re public schools… It is not really an increase in allocated funds for the individual student with special needs. The funding for each student remains static. This new initiative simply allows districts to receive funding for students that arrive in the district after September 30. The new dollars are not specifically targeted at increaseing funding per student. They will serve though, to address the issue that, until this announcement, the districts "carried" the cost of an unfunded student for the time after September 30 that the student is enrolled (ie potentialy from Oct1 to June30). As the funding is no longer specifically tied to the individual student (local administration can spend the money as they deem required and not neccessarily on the specific student they received the funding for) this is no gaurentee that things will get better for the students in a public school. In light of the fact that this does not represent an increase per student so that the quality of support is improved and that funding is not "tied" to the student I remain sceptical that it represents much for the individual student in the public system. It may be an arguement to attend private school though (if you can afford it) as the private school admin will more likely spend the allocated money directly on the special needs student. I remain unimpressed about the public school announcment and worried about the viability of the private school system assisting many families with specil needs children in who are "lower income" earners.

Dave.

[Dave Collyer]

Hello all,

I have a preschool issue to deal with. My son attends a local private NPO preshool in Victoria. He receives support through the Supported Child Development (SCD) program at Queen Alexandra Centre. Last year when the program was known as Supported Child Care (SCC) he had a 1-1 worker 9 hours a week that helped him with the daily routine of preschool and assisted with the implimentation of his preschool program. She (his 1-1 worker) also acted so as to follow the reccomended "therapeutic" prgrams designed by his QA SLP and OT. As he only saw his SLP and OT (QA's EIP program) for 1 hour every second week his 1-1 worker delivered the primary component of his therpeutic interention. It is my understanding that this year the SCD program has reduced his allocated support time. In essence the new SCD program has allocated a maximum threshold of support of 6 hours (Range 3). He attends 12.5 hours. They have also indicated that aid time is not to be used to support "therapeutic" services. In addition, the new SCD "vision" of supported inclusion is built around the concept of "shared aid" time. One aid provides assistance to more then one child. I find this very difficult to accept and yet, it is my understanding, it is the vision of inclusion advocated for by our SCD Provincial body and our Local Area Counsil. My son has Down Syndrome and Autism. He is non-verbal. He does not sign. He has a rudimentary grasp of PEC. He does not engage with peers. He does not know how to play. If left undirected he will engage in endless stim (hand wiggle). He does not toilet himself. He does not follow verbal direction and requires frequent HOH prompting. He requires constant redirection when simply moving across the hall. He wanders off. He eats non-food items.

6 hours of support is all that has been allowed for. In effect this will leave him unsupported for 6.5 hours. For 6.5 hours without support he will not engage in the "educational" component of his preschool. He will, for half the time, simply sit and wiggle or he will engage in less safe activity (wandering away, eating odd non-food).

Does this sound rational? Is this founded and supported by research? Is this the model that has been propossed for the entire province? For many special needs children and for those with ASD it has been demonstrated that consistent direct instruction with frequent repitition is the only effective modality. Without significant aid time this seems very unlikely to occur and the outcome will be that my son will not recieve the level of support that will assist him to realise his potential. YES there is a need to address over facilitation by 1-1 workers as it can lead to overdependence but simply adopting a threshold max is not the method to do this as it prevents those children that require this level of support from recieving it.

I hope I am incorrect about the broader situation and that our case is the only one. However, if this is a province wide issue I would ask you, if you feel inclined, to contact your local MLA and adovcate for change and adequate funding. In addition it may be helpful to offer feedback to the Provincial Supported Child Devlopment Program Executive and, at a locaal level, by connecting wirth the members of your SCD Local Area Council and voice your concern (or outrage).

For some children inclusion will require more then 6 hours of support per week. Mine is one of these children… we need your support.

Dave.
drcollyer@shaw.ca

[Dave Collyer]

Hello Tina,

Lots of folks with kids who do not have Autism have left BDParty or other events when their kids have had a melt down. Just remember that… My first boy who does not have Autism had regular tantrums and was quite tuff to manage. We left more then one social event as a result. I recall frequently being so upset by his behavior that I had my own tantrum and did not do so great a job as a parent. Ilook back in embarsement now at those moments. Not embarsement about my son's behavior though. My embarasement is rooted firmly in my own behavior. In hind site I could have been far more proactive. My youngest (who has DownSynrome and Autism) is often the focus of attention at social gatherings… I just tell folks what is up. Saves needing to explain more extreme behavior when it occurs.
IMO it is OK to tell people that your son has Autism and that he is sensitive to loud noises or whatever and has difficulty figuring out how to manage these sorts of things… so he runs or has a melt down or whatever. It is who he is… those people who are more enlightened in my social circle actually go out of there way to make the social gathering more "Autism" friendly for him (in your case maybe no more balloons or loud noise makers…). I tell people. Those that can handle it and respond so as to include my son are my real freinds. Those that exclude him or don't try to accomodate him are no longer my friends. The people that care about you and your son will try… they may not get it right but they will try and that is so cool.

I dunno if popping the balloons afer the party as a "test" was such a good thing though. He was upset at the party and now he might be a bit upset with you to. I'd say no more balloons for a loooong time now and then maybe you could try a very careful de-sensitization program with him but I would do a heck of a lot of research about that sort of program before trying it. Talk to your consultant.

So… tell people. Your son has Autism. It is part of who he is… Oh ya… remember to give him a hug or whatever you do to tell him you love him.

Dave.
drcollyer@shaw.ca

[Dave Collyer]

Hello again…

We are looking for Therapists to join our brand new program in Victoria… our son is almost four years old and has Down Syndrome and Autsim… he is non-verbal (for the most part) but is social, loud and gerneally fun! Experience with ABA progams would be great but not required as training will be provided. Lead therapists with lots of experience would be awesome but junior therapists would also be great to hear from to! PEC training would also be an asset but… we will provide training as required.

drcollyer (at) shaw (dot) ca

[Dave Collyer]

Hello all,

I am new to this board… and would like to apologize as I cannot seem to sort out how it is organized… if this is not the correct spot to post please let me know.

Well… I am also new to the Autism "game". Some background before my question… Our son is 3.8 years old. He has Down Syndrome and has very recently been diagnosed with Autism. We live in Victoria. We have opted for Direct Funding to a Trust account. We have contracted with a Behavioral Consultant from ACT's QSP LIST. We are now searching for Autism Interventionists (AI) or "therapists". I am a bit stumped re. the employer-employee issue though. No mater how I read the CCRA info I cannot seem to see a way around potential AIs being "seen" by CCRA as employees. How are folks dealing with this issue? If this topic has been dealt with else where please point me towards the relevent posts. I have tried a number of keyword searches re. this issue on the FEAT site but nothing related pops up. I have spoken to one mother of a child with Aspergers re. this topic. She is about to be "called to the bar" and it is her very unofficial understanding of this issue that AIs are most likely employees in most cases. Also have consulted with a family friend who is a lawyer and he feels that most AIs would be ruled to be employees by CCRA. I dunno.

Thanks in advance.

Dave
drcollyer (at) shaw (dot) ca

Related docs. below:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4110/rc4110ed.html

http://www.crossanassociates.com/emptest.pdf#search='employee%20or%20contractor%20c

[Author]

Posts