[Dave Collyer]

Hi Ducky,

"What do you mean Parents have no rights? Have a look at this Dave:"

Uh… what? I don't think I said that we don't have any rights. Take another look. My point was that from my perspective Hewko does not necessarily give the parent the right to pick the SEA… the right to be consulted and the right to reasonable accommodation are spoken to in the Hewko ruling. Within the context of Hewko this includes the accommodation of the "home program" but this does not necessarily mean that home based staff need to be hired by the school. Yes we have the right (and obligation IMO) to advocate.

[Dave Collyer]

Hi Ducky Piyo,

Victoria School District has a very similar arrangement as to what the Surrey School board offers: CUPE ABA Therapist Job description and competency matrix for therapist and Consultant as well as a professional agreement "pledge" with specific requirements for the consultant, a parents therapists evaluation form and a requirement that an ongoing robust ABA program be in place in the home environment. The basic arrangements were in place prior to the Hewko ruling and have been formalized with consultation with key behaviour consultants over the last year… and in our situation the Hewko ruling had little to no real impact on our advocacy style and ultimately the supports put in place for our son. What did have an impact was the willingness of two key people within the District Spec Ed dept. to explore new options for our children and active positive advocacy with these two key partners.

SD68 has an ABA job description (two of them in fact) posted on their web site (ASD-Lovaas and one for ASD-Popard) and has had for years. I have also heard that North Vancouver also works in partnership with parents (or did? Fill us in North Van parents).

Anyway, my point is that Surrey is not alone and is not unique.

The Surrey College course offered to ABA Therapists is in addition to skills they already possess. They are not learning the ABA skill set on the job (well… we all learn on the job all the time… I hope). These therapists are already well versed in the ABA skill set and theory. I would suspect that the 1000 hours of previous exp. in ABA is meant to capture exactly that – skills have been developed over 1000 hours of supervised instruction and mentorship. In SD68 (Nanaimo) the requirement is 6 months of supervised practicum, In Victoria it is "1 to 2 years experience delivering an Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) Program to an autistic child under the direction supervision of a certified professional trained in Applied Behaviour Analysis". In my opinion these high thresholds for experience and skills captured by the "1000 hour" requirement are absolutely essential. We want skilled therapists in place. We do not want the district hiring people who say they have credentials (perhaps a college course in ABA and skills) but which in fact are dubious or developing after a short period working in a home program. Direct supervised application, mentorship, continuous feedback from the consultant and senior or lead therapist over an extended period of time is key… it is a key part of the "argument" to convince the district that bringing in an ABA Therapist and program is a good idea… the person has skills… it has been documented… they have depth… they are not new to the field… they are not being put in place on a whim… they have invested time and effort in developing skills… they are in fact professional.

From my perspective re. instructional control – Hewko only requires that the Districts demonstrate Instructional Control. It does not specify how this is to be done. Tread carefully when using Hewko as a tool to advocate for services. You need to know the limits of what was "won".

re. parents "right" to pick whom they want to have work with their child at school. In my opinion it is not really a specific right at all. It could be argued based on the Hewko ruling that there is an obligation on the part of the District to engage in meaningful consultation with the parents re. the program for their child and that the district is required to demonstrate instructional control BUT there is nothing that specifically grants parents the "right" that you mention. You have the right to be consulted in a meaningful manner. Thats it. It is a possibility that the District may already have a CUPE member in place who has the required skills and that this person could be assigned to your child as the ABA-SEA. In this case it would be essential that the consultant work actively with the SEA to ensure programs are delivered across environments and that instructional fidelity is maintained. It is completely possible that in this context that instructional control could be transferred into the school environment. In this context it would be very similar to hiring on a therapist to work with you at home… and this therapist already possesses skills… you would need to familiarize them with the specific aspects of your child's individual program but they would quickly grasp the nuances and under supervision quickly develop instructional control.

Anyway, we are into year 5 in the school system. Smooth sailing so far. District has hired from our home team 3 times as they cannot find ABA therapists with 1 year supervised ABA… awesome. It works. Keep it going people. Find key people within the Districts. Work with them to put systems in place. If they stonewall keep at it… as heavy as needed. Remember – carrot and stick.

[Dave Collyer]

Hello Brooks,

I sure hope things have resolved for you over the last few days… I am surprised at the lack of response from the FEAT members…
This is a huge issue for ALL of us.

Without knowing the details of your situation I am going to assume that the "risk" presented to the BCTF member by your child is aggressive-assaultive behaviour. In the past I have worked with children who were incredibly aggressive and I loved my job. Kinda odd I guess but these kids used to make me happy to come to work. They have super personalities that people often overlook simply because the negative behaviour draws so much attention. Focus on the strengths and deal with the behaviour constructively. It will change over time. :0)

This issue (WCB investigations etc) has presented in the past in other districts. WCB has usually generated a report and recommendations re. addressing-reducing risks. Based on this report School and Board based admin officers typically are tasked with producing a risk reduction action plan. A "what to do" action plan. Trained SEAs are put in place or training is provided to current SEAs to implement this plan. A behaviour plan is developed that includes both proactive and reactive strategies. Ideally, IMO, this plan would be developed by an expert in the field of Autism… perhaps your consultant. Regardless proactive strategies are identified (how to reduce the likelihood of the behaviour occurring… antecedent manipulation, reinforcement of appropriate "competing behaviors" etc) and reactive strategies are clearly outlined (what to do when the behaviour occurs… deescalation, when to call for help, who to call for help etc). SEAs should be trained in CPI (Conflict Prevention Intervention) training (which covers restraints, deescaltion etc) as should other key members of the staff. Obviously CPI training should "kick in" only when all other elements of the behaviour plan have failed.

So… talk with the District Spec Ed admin and the school Admin Officers about a "risk reduction" plan to address the concerns outlined in the WCB report. CPI training. Trained SEAs. Key school based staff who can assist if behaviour escalates. etc… Sometimes the school admin needs to be brought to the water and encouraged to drink… lol. Good luck and know that you are not alone.

Dave.

[Dave Collyer]

Hi Janet,

One comment you made caught my attention: "We cannot be expected to be experts in all disabilities".

I applaud this statement. I think it is a call for change. A change that would see Districts and BCTF members reaching out to Community based consultants so as to work in partnership with them to develop and monitor IEP plans. It would be a major step forward to actively allow out side consultants to train Teaching staff and Teaching Assistants in implementation and data collection of IEP plans and to monitor and revise as needed. The expertise exists and BCTF members, as you note, do not have it. Time to let our consultants into the schools in a true, active and full partnership without the need to jump hurdles created by "turfism" and collective agreements. A good idea I think and nice to hear a BCTF member recognize that they do not posses the expertise and that the BCTF membership in general also does not possess it and, regardless of best intents, will likely never possess it. Out source contracting for effective student educational plans… I think it would work out well for our children and would bring up the level of expertise within the schools. A win win option (unless you are a BCTF negotiator and happen to put member's rights and contract clauses ahead of student outcomes).

I read a lot of the spec ed research when I'm bored. I found this interesting article and I wonder if you might find the strategies practical for your grey area kids and others… it covers embedded instruction within the school setting. See reference below. :

"The Efficacy of Embedded Instruction for Students with Developmental Disabilities Enrolled in Genera Education Classes" Jesse W. Johnson, John McDonnell, Valarie N. Holzwarth and Kimberly Hunter
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 2004 6: 214

From the abstract: "The results also indicate that both general education teachers and paraprofessionals were able to implement the procedure with a high degree of fidelity without disrupting the ongoing instructional activities of the general education classes. Teacher ratings of the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the procedures suggested that teachers viewed embedded instruction as a practical, effective, and efficient strategy for teaching students with developmental disabilities in general education settings."

re. Funding for Spec Ed kids is not a simple $18000 rate and it varies… lvl 1 = 36000, lvl 2 = 18,300, lvl 3 = 9200

[Dave Collyer]

Hi Barabara,

re. CABAS and peer review

That was not my point. Bev indicated that it was appropriate to discuss ABA approaches that have "science" behind them (peer reviewed supportive literature), DTT methodology and that are ABA. Verbal Behaviour was her "targeted offending" topic and yet AVB utilizes DTT, has peer reviewed literature supporting it (more IS needed… but the same can be said of Lovaas ABA), and is in fact ABA. My post was simply to suggest that efforts to limit scope of discussion need to be clear… if the intent is to limit discussion to Lovaas based ABA then it would perhaps be better to say exactly that as "DTT", "science", "ABA" are not unique to Lovaas based ABA.

Here is an interesting article if any one is interested in exploring the differences between Lovaas ABA and Applied Verbal Behaviour ABA:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6887/is_1_2/ai_n28321072/?tag=content;col1

(Also of interest, at last to me, since 2005 (article date of publication) there have been a number of + research efforts focusing on AVB published in peer reviewed journals.)

Understand, that I am not "championing" Verbal Behaviour… we in fact do not utilize the approach in our home and school based programs. My point is/was that we need to be clear when setting terms of reference limiting discussion.

D.

[Dave Collyer]

Hi Bev,

It might be better to simply say that this forum is for, and limited to, the discussion of issues relevant to Lovaas type ABA.

This would perhaps serve to set some loosely defined limits.

I mention this as Applied Verbal Behaviour ABA that the CABAS program incorporates(the "offending" post) also utilizes a Discrete Trial Teaching methodology, has a small but growing body of peer reviewed published research literature (the basic foundation of a science based intervention), is rooted in the same basic principles as Lovaas ABA (as articulated and described by B.F. Skinner) and is, in fact, a form of Applied Behaviour Analysis.

Dave.

[Dave Collyer]

Check out Walmart. Much better deals for laminating supplies then Staples etc…

[Dave Collyer]

Section 11 of the School Act.

This applies to Appeals to the Board 11 and Appeals to the Superintendent of Achievement 11.1 in case folks don't know what Andrea is referring to •••••. 11 process" (although if you been down that path I can't help but think that you would know about what she is referring to).

http://www.studentappeals.gov.bc.ca/process.htm
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf (page C23)

[Dave Collyer]

Hi Iris,

Apparent disconnect between the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education and MCFD?

MCFD website says "Parents who wish to purchase a private diagnostic assessment for their child may do so. These assessments must meet the same standards and guidelines as BCAAN assessments." (found here: http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/autism/assess_diagnosis.htm ).

They (MCFD) then reference this document from the Provincial Health Authority website: "Standards and Guidelines for the Assessment and Diagnosis of Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in British Columbia" http://www.phsa.ca/NR/rdonlyres/C89133D0-D87B-4871-AB63-153CEFFA8DA0/0/asd_standards_0318.pdf

****In section 7.3.1 of this document the CARS is noted as an approved schedule to use****

Clear? Right? Use BCCA0-PHSA approved schedules… and the CARS is one of them. Got it. Good to go?? Uh… hold on… not so fast…

The Ministry of Education in it's wisdom seems to have dropped the CARS as acceptable documentation even though the PHSA-BCCAN seems to accept it as part of the diagnostic toolkit. (see here and note that MEd only seems to note the ADI-R and the ADOS – http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/special_ed_policy_manual.pdf#page=47 ).

Further mudding the water the MCFD form for Non-BCCAN assessments only notes the ADOS and ADI-R ( http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/autism/pdf/cf_0904.pdf ). Regardless it appears that the MCFD accepted "just" the CARS when you applied for funding… so they have acknowledged it as valid even though it is not on their own form.

So… I think there seems to be a bit of a disconnect. MCFD and the MEd say to use BCCAN as a measure of good practice and reference the "Standards and Guidelines for the Assessment and Diagnosis of Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in British Columbia" documents which says CARS is OK… then they leave the CARS out??? Odd… well… not really. It is government. Likely an oversight or perhaps they have failed to update the diagnostic standards documentation. Either way… You would think that you wold be accepted under a simple "grandfathering"…. I mean your child qualified "yesterday" for funding… what has changed today?

I'll do some more digging… I like mysteries.

[Dave Collyer]

Dunno what study Todd had in mind.

Lovaas (1987) reported: "…47% achieved normal intellectual and educational functioning… 40% were mildly retarded and assigned to special eduction classes for the language delayed… 10% were profoundly retarded and assigned to classes for the autistic/retarded"."

In '93 Lovaas ((McEachin, Smith and Lovaas, 1993) "wonders" in the discussion section of this paper if:

"…perhaps such children {those who make limited or no progress on the instruments/scales used} require new and different interventions…" .

Which leads one to wonder about what such Interventions might be that are new and different? It appears that in this paper the idea that new and emergent interventions might hold merit for some children on the spectrum is an area for further examination… the door to other non-ABA options for research does not seem to be closed at least in the minds of these preeminent ABA researchers-authors.

I think these examples might serve to support what Todd has written below. There are more… LMK what tyou are looking for and I would be happy to find it in my pile of papers.

[Author]

Posts