I am still digesting my older son's (just turned 10, a rising 5th grader) test results (from a neuropsychologist). We went in looking for dysgraphia, and came out with dysgraphia. For reading though -- I am pleased. He is my son who was in a lot of speech therapy, and who did a lot of reading remediation with me. He got a 92 in Word Reading (30th percentile), 93 in Pseudoword Decoding (32nd percentile), and 94 in Spelling (34th percentile). But, in Reading Comprehension he got 112 (79th percentile). The note says "also, relative to his reading comprehension, he had weaknesses in phonetic decoding of both real and nonsense words, mild residuals of his earlier reading problems, now largely resolved." He really does read well now. He will stay up reading when he is reading a series he likes. He has got his own taste in books. I am honestly sad about what she had to say about his handwriting. She dos not think that he has automatic letter formation. I can't believe I have a 10-year-old now and maybe he doesn't have automatic letter formation. (I have been hearing this since he was 7 and he went into OT.) She also, besides typing, wants him to do some minimal handwriting b/c she thinks he is at risk to have his handwriting deteriorate if he goes too long (aka over summer vacation) without review/practice.

I am feeling foolish. I cannot understand how the mother and father did not take more steps (of whatever kind?) to safeguard their children from having opportunities to molest, and from being molested. I would not feel foolish if it happened once and the parents took decisive action of any kind as soon as they knew. For it to keep happening after they knew I do not understand. I am reading a report (maybe not accurate?) saying that a later incident involved a girl sitting on his lap listening to a story. It seems like an opportunity that should have been prevented for the good of both sides, and I do not understand why it was not prevented. I have always liked Michelle, too.

My son has had goals recently related to following two-step directions, so I have noticed, the resource room has a lot of things that are stored in a visually non-cluttered way, but are also accessible to students. So there are a lot of natural opportunities for kids to follow a direction to get things out and put things away. Bolting has been complicated at my house. There are a lot of possible elements. Is he running "away" from the instruction? Why? Too bored? Too hard? Not enough reinforcement? Reinforcement not good enough? Too much work expected before he gets reinforcement? Or, is he running "toward" something he wants? Is this something he *could* have if he asked for it in a different way (like, a snack or a drink of water)? How can I help him communicate what he wants, and talk to him about when he can have what he wants, if the answer is "first finish this, then you can have that" or something like that. But sometimes it is a game, he likes to be chased, he thinks it is amusing. Separately -- keep in mind that the word "independent" means a different thing in my usage, which is, a more special education kind of usage. Like -- independent behavior is things like washing hands, going in a bathroom stall and knowing to use toilet paper and flush, being able to pick out a toy to play with that you choose for yourself -- and choosing for yourself how to play with it. Asking for a drink or snack. Putting on and zipping a coat. Asking to wear a coat because you are cold. Asking to take off a sweater because you are hot. It is a really broad word, but "independent behavior" for a pre-school or Kindergarten child, is stuff that I doubt would seem too objectionable for being "too independent." But it is definitely good not to have kids be too independent, too. Our personal situation is also that my son has one-on-one aide support for the entire day at school, and so there is an inherent risk for him to fail to develop independence unless it is something that is kept in mind as "not a good idea." It is something that is always brought up and it is a "con" of one-on-one aide support. It is the opposite of the experience that people have whose kids do not qualify for help they need. My son qualifies for help, but there is a danger of it stifling him and being counter-productive. There is a danger of him not having opportunities to do things for himself and missing out on all of those learning and problem-solving opportunities that he needs so badly. It is a known danger and there are steps to take to try to keep this from happening, but it is the kind of thing that people worry about in my situation. Keep in mind also -- there is a lot of interplay between physiological and emotional inner states. This means -- you feel embarassed, you feel your face get warm. You feel nervous, you feel it in your stomach. You feel excited, your heart beats faster. So it depends on how it is being talked about exactly ----- but there is always a link between sensory, emotion, and physiological states. It is not like there is an artificial divide between a problem that is talking about it from a more sensory take, or one from a more emotional take. They are really talking about the same thing in a way. A lot of kids are not able to identify their emotional state, too, and my understanding is that there are times that in identifying an emotional state, part of the way it is taught, is by teaching kids to monitor their phsyiological signs. Like -- they could have the phsyiological signs of being upset, but not have consciously identified they feel upset. So that being aware of the physiological signs is a foundational skill towards recognizing an emotion you are having. At our last IEP meeting I was told that my son was doing well with identifiying emotions in others in a variety of situations, but he was not able to identify his own emotion nearly as well. I am recommended to talk through with him and help him identify his emotion any time it comes up (for happy, sad, excited, and angry). Part of this is that when he says "happy" or "excited" he gets a good reaction "awesome! high five!" and so he needs to get a kind of good reaction for sad and angry too, but obviously it can't be "awesome! high five!" So we have to pay attention and appreciate him saying "sad" and "angry" or he is not going to learn to self-identify these emotions (as this seems like his learning style to a huge degree, in general, and he often learns to memorize an answer that got him a good reaction, even if it does not make sense and it not what he means or wants). Also, to some extent -- a technique is a technique whether it is used "before" or "after." It is the same technique, but it may work out differently whether it is used before or after. It is not that the technique itself is different. This kind of language possibly comes from "antecedent, behavior, consequence" and "contingent behavior" terminology from ABA. This is just an idea that sometimes it matters whether something happens before or after a behavior. It is different from a kind of "pure sensory" where it would not matter what relationship the sensory technique to what else is going on ----- where it might be just an "input/result" idea, where the sensory input is receive and the outcome occurs. That is not the total idea, when it gets melded in with more "behavior" ideas about "well, it does matter what the context it and how it is used in the context." Except really, I think this is just a pretty multidisciplinary kind of idea now, on both sides.

It is not exactly a mind game. They just go about building and establishing a relationship of trust, the same as they do with your child. They just do it in a deliberate way. They also will try to shape a parent's behavior by reinforcing things they think are good autism parenting practices, and not reinforcing things they think are not-so-good autism parenting practices, the same as they do with the kids. It is not exactly a mind game, though. It is not manipulative, so much as it is purposeful. I think it is also strategic and thinking about long-term goals. But when somebody's agenda is "I want to establish a relationship of trust with this person," they do that by acting trustworthy and patient and willing to answer questions. If their agenda is also "I want to help this person develop good autism parenting practices," they do that by providing information, but also by providing positive or negative feedback. They are just very ABA in how they provide the positive and negative feedback. The teachers are like this, too. In a way it makes them very peaceful to deal with. Like -- if they are very entrenched that, when a child is upset, they adopt a calm manner and talk quietly ----- they will do it to parents, also. The district autism specialist is totally like this -- and it does work on me. It makes her really easy to talk to about things that are of concern to me. If I start to get agitated in talking to her, everything about her is going "I am so calm, won't you be calm with me?" She does not respond to my starting-to-get-agitated by starting to get agitated herself. But our ABA agency is like -- kind-of upfront that they will bring the principles of behavioral analysis into their relationship with parents in a purposeful way. They are like "ABA is so awesome!" I would think poorly of it if they had an agenda that was not "helping kids; helping parents help kids." But when that is their agenda, I want to be part of that agenda. But I started out with a high level of suspicion towards them. I had a kind-of strong initial dislike of the district autism specialist, too, and only stood her b/c someone at my church spoke highly of her. But they all are like -- okay, parents are usually pretty difficult when they have a newly diagnosed child and don't know what is going on with all these autism treatments. So they are like -- okay, we are going to try to get along with the parents so that they don't pull their kids out of treatment and go to the allergy doctor who has got a really good rapport with parents. It is hard to explain -- and I didn't see this with my older son. I took him to speech and OT, and I talked to them, but it was like -- I went into it thinking, "yes, he needs speech, definitely." I was a little hesitant about OT in some ways, but she easily explained things to me, and took a little time to talk to me (we had a meeting when I talked to her without my son present when we were starting out, and I felt like we were on the same page and everything after that). But a lot of parents do not start ABA with as much goodwill, especially when it is like "oh, this is all the insurance will cover." That is how I felt. Then there is all this terminology and it is not like I have not read the negative reviews on the Internet, too. But with my younger son, I have seen that the parent/therapist relationship matters a lot more, b/c more trust is needed, and it is just more difficult to say "hey, so this is the therapy I should be doing." So there is a lot more sucking-up to parents and buttering up parents. I think this is ubiquitous. I think ABA therapists do it *the least.* They just do it in their own ABA way. I pulled my son from a center with speech/OT and the OT in particular was super-schmoozy, and also in particular was not getting anything done with my son. But I would sit in the waiting room, and feel like there were parents who were really buying it, and like they walked away feeling good and like the therapist was a great person and caring and personable with them and very pleased with the therapy ---------- regardless of any results the therapist was getting with their child. There were absolutely kids there making good progress (I think she was excellent for food sensitivity), but it did not seem like the child's progress mattered much to some people if they felt like they had a good vibe with the therapist. But I do not think that was done with bad intentions, I think the therapist was just naturally good with parents. But did that mean she was a good therapist? For all the kids? No. She was for some, but she was not effective with my son. But yeah ---- the parent/therapist relationship is part of their job, and their job is ABA. They are doing ABA. But it is not that other people are not doing anything and are just totally without any agenda when speaking to parents, or trying to seem likable to parents, or have a goal of getting along well with parents and communicating clearly with them. They do have it. I think this is even a lot of what experienced people have going for them. It is a lot of why new therapists rub parents the wrong way when speaking to them. I just try to be as clear-eyed as possible and try to look at what is going on for my child, and try not to get too into "well, this is the therapist I really hit it off with." Even though that exists, and it does count for something. But I may hit it off with somebody who is an effective therapist, or not. There is also the issue of "are they saying what I want to hear? or are they saying what they really think?" If they think "well, if I say exactly what I think, this parent will be rubbed totally the wrong way and pull their child," then it does not make sense for them to be like "here you go, this is exactly what I think." It does make sense for them to slowly say what they think. This is what all the good therapists do, I think. The bad ones either go all "I will say what you want to hear" OR they are way too blunt and it is just hurtful to hear it, and not possible to take it in. The good ones will tell you, but they may not lay it all out in one day. For my older son's OT where I felt like "I have a good impression, but I am not sure what she is about," one meeting with her after a month of my son going, left me feeling very good. But that was for things that are comparatively straightforward. Totally separately ---- there is a theory about autism that has some explanation for me. It is the "mirror neurons" theory. It says "most people have mirror neurons, and they make people see things other people are doing, and want to mirror them." Then for autism -- the mirror neurons are not working in the same way somehow. So -- to make up for it, you have to get another way to get kids to want to do things. Because -- where other kids are getting this natural reinforcement, they are not getting it. So -- you start by providing unnatural reinforcement, and then the kids see "Hey, this is actually pretty cool," and then they move towards natural reinforcement. Also you need to teach them things they are less-able to pick up on their own. I do not have a super-high attachment to that theory, I think it could be considered laughable in 20 years. But -- it does make some sense to me. I think a lot of what we do is trying to encourage the mirror neurons to do whatever they can, and/or build up alternative ways to get the same motivation. This is a very "motivation" kind of theory of autism. It is not the only theory that I kind-of like. But it is one of them. There are a lot and often they are at cross-purposes.

The control stuff is not in the VB Approach book. It is a very basic book, but the basics are vital to me. I am vague on the control thing. I know about it b/c my son used to not have "instructional control" and a lot of stuff was "to establish instructional control." This is (from my understanding) this general sense that you do what a teacher or appropriate adult tells you to do when it is a pretty reasonable and doable thing. Like -- just having this idea "I should do what the teacher says." It is the thing that, when he is at recess, and the teacher calls the kids to come inside, will lead him to stop what he is doing and line up with the other children. (Or this might not be what it is -- I don't really know.) He might have helpers like a 5-minute warning or being told "after recess is something else you think is cool" to make it an easier transition (and other "make it an easier transition" strategies"). But at a certain point -- he also has to think "hey, I need to do what the teacher says" in a general way. It is more something that is mentioned to me as "don't worry, this problem behavior will get better as it comes under environmental control." And that means -- when he develops an awareness of what is expected in his environment, he will behave appropriately to the environment, if he is taken by this idea "yes, everyone else does it, and I should do it, too." But I do not know if I have read about it. I think I have just been told about it. And I have just been told about it like "we are working on it by doing this and this" over the years. And like "it is important." But I do not really know about it. It is a not-so-secret thing that ABA therapists do ABA on parents, too. At this time I basically trust the therapist and I do not question her like I did earlier on, when I did not trust her. There is a lot of fodder there for thinking about how it is the same process for kids as they come to trust a therapist. Oh, I also hear "joint control." I think this just means, there is more than one type of control. I am honestly not sure. It will seem like it makes sense when I hear it in context. I have had to read all these books partly just to be able to have a conversation with people who seem to speak in such jargon even when trying not to. They do it at school, too. And then the speech therapists do not necessarily use the same jargon, and neither do the school teachers. They all have their own jargon and sometimes they have to check in on what their jargon means with each other. It drives me completely crazy. Edit: I just tried googling... instructional control has a ton of responses. Nothing much for joint control or environmental control, so I may be totally misunderstanding exactly what words are being used for this?

The thing is my son had a home program plus special needs pre-school for 2 years, and now he is in full-day elementary school and is doing activities with ABA tutor support most days after school. So this is not stuff I have figured out on my own. I am more in the role of: understanding my son's program, and what his goals are, and why, and the rationale behind how we are trying to reach those goals. I am in the role of understanding and fulfilling my role as: parent, and I am responsible for my son's home routines, a lot of his leisure, his social interaction with his brother and sister, outings, food, helping, playing with the dog, and things like that. That is my direct role. I am also involved in everything. But I do not know "how" my son does his work box at school. I know that he is doing well. I know he now gets his workbox off a shelf (finding the one with his name on it!), does his work, and puts it back on the shelf. I know he is doing things that are easy enough for him to independently, and for him the purpose is building independence more than to teach him new things -- so it is more for review (which is also important). But I am like -- being told this by his resource teacher, at the IEP meeting, or sometime I am talking to her. He is only doing workboxes a minimal amount, so that he can make progress in independence, because for this year the focus of his year has been socializing and school routines (and our old friend language skills). They just do the workboxes for him a little so he can make progress in independent work habits, too. But I get this from my son's ABA supervisor and his resource teacher at school (or the head teacher at special needs pre-school). Both of these people have their own supervisors (a BCBA-D, and the district autism specialist). But there is no need for them to consult about my son! They have got it under control. This is a big improvement compared to when sometimes these people were consulted wrt my son (when he was younger). But these people have got a lot of education and experience in this. And I am sure other autism specialists, too. But I wonder if this is the kind of thing where you pay an ABA consultant $2,000 and she sets up a schedule/structure and recommends what form that takes and what reinforcement schedule you use, and then you call or e-mail her about questions, and then go about doing everything else you want to do within that schedule/structure. I don't know if that is really how it works? But I have an impression like it is something people here can pay $2,000 for? And depending on what situation they have, consider it money they are glad they have spent. But I don't *really* know b/c I have just got this impression, and I don't know exactly how it works. It is not how we do it b/c of my son's level and our insurance. I also have read a lot of things where people did have their kids in a school program that was working in some ways, and carried over what had worked from the school program into their home, so that they were not trying to invent everything from scratch. That would be my situation if I decided to homeschool. But other than that -- I think just try to read, and try to go slow with anything you try. Expect it to be a learning process to do any of this. They make it look easy sometimes, in videos, but it is not just some one-day process, to get kids to where they are doing these things. It is a big learning process and it takes time. As for crayons -- if you want him to independently choose to color with NO environmental or group control (or it is called something else?) ---- you are asking for it to be his top choice when he can pick anything at all. That is a high thing to ask. Environmental control is ----- at Bob Evans he is sitting, there are crayons there, there is nothing else to do. It is a set-up to color for him. Maybe other factors, too. Group control is -- he sees other people doing it, and so he wants to do it, too. That is also present at Bob Evans. So you can either try to make coloring very, very motivating for him, intrincially motivating so he wants to do it on his own. You can try this by: pairing it with favorite activities, making it really cool, increasing his skill so that he feels like he is good at it, or whatever. Is this realistic? Maybe not -- not every kid is so into coloring. Or, you can build it into your routine that "now we color" in some kind of way. You can use strategies to make it more likely to be something he goes along with. Maybe that is what is realistic. But just think of how many kids color "because it is time to color," not because it is one of their top favorite things to do such that they go and get out the craft supplies and color when they could be picking anything else available to them. Even though "coloring is supposed to be something kids do on their own just because they want to" sometimes that is not the reality of a child's current experience and reality. (I mean -- maybe your little picture of crayons is a "moms choice" on your schedule -- or the equivalent kind of idea in whatever way you set things up.) But if coloring is not currently intrinsically motivating and intrinsically a free-choice activity for your son, that is the current reality, but doesn't meant you don't work towards it. You can have a lot of strategies for where you are, and for where you want to go.

I have two takes. One, can this be used for pairing? Are you allowed to sit with him and comment a bit? Are you allowed to laugh at a funny part? Are you allowed to act goofy and pretend you don't know an answer when they go "where is George hiding?" (or whatever -- all the pre-school shows do something like this)? Could you potentially pause and ask how someone is feeling and make a comment "yes, she looks sad, because blah blah." Could you pause and say "what do you think will happen next?" If anything like this is regarded as "you are really just bugging me" then I think it may not be the best activity for pairing. But in pairing you start in a low-demand way, you don't throw in high demands at first (asking a question is a high demand, tolerating you laughing or commenting is a lower demand, tolerating you sitting and watching it might be a very low demand ----- depending on what the situation is). Two, in a more long-term way, right now it looks like you have 3 20-minute videos as part of your morning. If you could get to a point to where it worked for your schedule to spread the videos out and let them be on a visual schedule you might use.... I don't think it is excessive, and it might work for you. Like -- in the OT video, when they have a visual schedule with 5 spaces -- the mom puts down 2 non-negociables (or "mom's choice") and then the child puts down 3 "kids choice" paper squares. Well, in visual schedules in general, you are not limited to only OT activities. You can have a little picture of a tv, or a Curious George. Depending on how it is being done (and this was something the therapist decided for us) you can let the tv be an option any time there is a "kids choice" but limit the time -- go to 5-minute you-tube videos, or just pause. Or ---- you can "use up" icons as they are used - -they can go into a bag instead of back onto the paper. For this you might have 3 tv icons, and when the 3 tv icons are used up, the child has to pick something else. This is like -- for when a child has a lot of things they like, so you are not using up the only thing they are interested in, and also, when they would understand (or be able to start "learning through the process") that "if I see 3 tv icons, I need to think, hmmm, maybe I don't want to use them all up first thing, maybe I want to save one for later." But for this, you don't go "okay, it is 3, that is all, got it?" You might start with a lot of tv icons, and have them get squeezed out by other preferred activities, until eventually, "oh, there is room for 3 tv icons" but it is not such a big deal. Or whatever. Now -- I don't do a lot of this. I do more first/then statements. But the visual schedules, choice boards, first/then cards ------- these are all pretty generically used autism strategies. They are supposed to be good for problem behaviors and for transitions. There is a lot of nuance in how they are set up and exactly how they are used. Like -- when teaching how they are used, maybe they are just used with 3 preferred activities in a row -- so that the kids like the schedule strip when they see it, and start to be used to following a schedule. Or maybe they jump into it in a different way. http://www.amazon.com/Activity-Schedules-Children-Autism-Edition/dp/160613003X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8 I have read this book from the library, it manages to be a 100-page book mostly about visual schedules. For us personally, we primarily use this kind of concept as a way to decrease problem behavior and improve transitions (a lot of problem behavior was occurring at transitions). But to a certain point -- it is not like you have to have the visual schedule. You can have the same way of structuring things or discussing things, and then not use the picture icons. I do not use them, but I would if I was seeing certain things. I think they are a need at school, and at school can let him be more independent (vs. responding to those dreaded verbal prompts... visual schedules are considered easy to fade as appropriate). They are the kind of thing that I need to be aware of, and I might need to be able to tell another person what his experience is with using them, and how many icons at a time he has used, and how independently he has used them (if this is the purpose), or things like that. They are just one of those things. If I ever hear "there is an issue with a transition, what has worked in the past?" then I am going to say "a visual schedule has worked in the past and here is some detail about how he was using it most recently." (In practice -- everyone tries to be consistent with what is used at pre-school or school, in his case, but there are still details involved.) Other strategies are "giving a warning" and "starting with a warm-up." And more strategies.

I accept that I do a lot that is on a maintenance or management model. That does not mean there is no plan to move toward greater self-management and independence over time. But to some extent -- it is a model where the child takes over the maintenance and management. It is not one where the need for maintenance and management totally disappears. I hear a lot that there are changes with maturity, too, so that the actual problems decrease. I think there is slow, incremental progress, too. Keep in mind -- my son is seeing his 3rd OT. He has got the one now who specializes in more severe autism. She is super-hippie and super into sensory everything. She sees her role as getting kids into a balanced state where they are capable of learning and also of functioning in their daily lives without having continuous sensory reactions. My son is really not so much of a sensory kid, he is more of a language kid. But he is still a sensory kid, too. It is not that there are no kids where they get a cure. But I do not think that is realistic thinking for me at this time. I think as my son makes other gains in other areas, maybe transfers of those gains into the sensory/OT area will go a long way for him. I also do not have any personal experience of The Incredible 5-Point Scale, or Zones of Regulation. They are not recommended as appropriate for my son's age/level right now, by the people who work with him. But he is doing foundational skills that will help him. He is doing good where he is right now. In fact ----- he is doing extremely well. But he is also doing good for him, he is not the kid in the more advanced curriculum. But I know a bit about them, from reading and from hearing presentations. I have heard a few presentations about the 5-Point Scale because it is used in our school district. I just heard again yesterday, they really think my son's language skills are going to continue to improve as he gets older. So some programs would be able to be modified, or hey, just do the ones that are more built upon visual supports and add in language to him that is appropriate for him (seems to be making more sense than vice versa -- modifying the language-y ones to be less language-y).

Okay, responding. There are a few issues. First, know that my son is not at a level to do more language-based programs (like Zones of Regulation). That is some context for some things. Of course they want kids to take as much ownership as possible. Two, it depends what is going on, just how they use it. Three, well, my son is in a program where they are going to combine sensory and behavior strategies to some degree. So there is the visual schedule aspect, the choice board aspect, the "first, then" card aspect. These are very "autism" strategies that are going to fit well in a resource room using autism strategies. I don't think that detracts -- it is just a bit of context. Four, what they do NOT want to happen ---- child dislikes something, so child requests a sensory break to avoid doing the thing he doesn't want to do. That is part of why the visual schedule can be used. It gives the child a choice. It can be used to let the sensory be a bit of a reward for first doing a less-desired task. These are the usual autism strategies for using a choice board, using a visual schedule, going from a less-preferred activity to a more-preferred activity, etc. Five, really though ----- it assumes you know a child. You know how long they can work before they need a break. Can you do two activities and then need a sensory break? Can you do three or five? Can you usually do five, but only three if it is an off day? These are all things where you just kind-of know the kid and how long they can do things, and what they like, and what is more difficult, and you take all that knowledge and bring it together. For a child who already has more self-awareness, etc, sure there are other ways to structure things and work on things. I just do not know as much about them yet! There is also stuff like Zones of Regulation, which might be a better choice. My son is not at that level yet, but just b/c he is not at that level yet, it doesn't mean he will never get to that level, or that one is better than the other. But I think it is good to know a little about options and what theory/model people are operating under.... and then you see what the OT thinks is the right choice for your child's age and level. I truly am impressed with the sensory folders and how they are used, but 5 years from now do I think my son will still be using them the way he is now? I doubt it. They definitely want to transition him to where he is doing more and they are doing less (in helping him identify his emotions and stuff). But I don't think it is fair to hold against a program, that it may be used by kids who don't have all the foundational skills to use another program, that truly is more advanced in various ways. But if you are better off with Zones of Regulation as a primary thing -- then there it is. I think it is getting at the sensory/behavior intersection, too. But I think it is helpful, too, to keep in mind ----- a lot of people like me will come to Zones of Regulation, not from scratch with no background. We will come to it with years of other stuff under our belts, and I think it is helpful (or will be helpful). Or I tell myself that! But https://www.socialthinking.com/books-products/social-emotional-learning/a-5-could-make-me-lose-control-detail my son's school will be transitioning kids to this "1-5" thing (The Incredible 5-Point Scale). I do not know *too* much about it. Some kids start with it -- that is their starting level. It is similar to Zones of Regulation, but it is older (and seemingly not so hip). But it is what is used here for now. I hear good things about it. So yes ---- this is not really meant to be permanent, in a way, it is meant to get more independent and with the child identifying their own emotional states and energy levels and stuff. But keep in mind ---- these are considered very hard skills to learn and so it is not fair to just be like "why not just have the kid identify his own emotional state?" Like -- of course that is idea, but it may not be realistic without time spent working on that skill. And in the meantime -- kids need to be able to learn and stuff. And there are a lot of teaching opportunities in talking about whether to put your spinner on red or yellow or green. But I also do not know as much about exactly how it is done. I have more impressions. My son has a visual schedule anyway where he is working towards something.... or, where he knows he does 3 things and then it is time for a sensory break because that is what is on his visual schedule. But I think it is acting as a reward for him in a lot of ways, too. But the teachers are smart -- they make things work both ways, if it makes sense to have a sensory break be a treat for the child that motivates him to do 3 things first, and if it is also good for the child's sensory needs. But my son does visual schedules anyway. It is supposed to be a good autism thing for him! It is one of those things, everybody locally thinks it is a good idea, in one way or another. It is one of those popular things, kind-of regardless of what professional it is. Everyone wants to get in to the visual schedules, b/c everyone thinks they are helpful for a lot of kids.

My son is mostly sensory under-responsive (or under-aroused) and sensory seeking. However they put it. Under-responsive and sensory seeking often go together. My son does not really have much in the way of sensory avoidant. There are times that he does not do well in a chaotic environment, and there are times he does not do well with a lot of visual stimulation. I have heard that mixed under-responsive and over-responsive is more difficult. Here is the interplay between the sensory and behavior models: okay, so, let's say that my son acts wild and we decide he needs a calming activity. That can make sense, it can be for sensory. Everything is good. But then -- my son "learns" (in behavioral terms) that if he wants to do the calming activity, the way he gets it, is by acting wild. He does not learn to identify "hey, I want that activity, so I should ask for it." B/c he is not "taught" to recognize that and ask for it. He is taught that when he acts wild, he will get attention and an enjoyable calming activity. So in behavior terms -- this is seen as a danger of "shaping" frantic behavior as a way for the child to get attention and a calming activity. But -- how do you say, "well, this time he is not *really* having a sensory regulation issue, this time he is *really* just trying to get attention and an activity in this maladaptive way." And it is like -- you just have an idea. Sometimes I just know -- "he didn't sleep well last night." "He is getting hungry." "I think he might be catching Sissy's cold." Etc. Or I am pretty sure it is sensory, really sensory. But sometimes I think it is behavioral. So since he does sensory in a behavior context ----- it means a few things. We are careful to use sensory as an "antecedent" as much as possible. This means we do it *before* he is wound up, and not *as a response to him being wound up.* (Aka not as a "consequence.) So the sensory folder is meant to be preventive or used at a first sign of trouble, while my son is still using his good behavior and able to use his words and all those good things. The other thing it means, is that we have to be careful about "not rewarding undesirable behavior." He might experience a sensory technique that way. If he likes it and it is what happens after he has been acting a certain way -- he might think that if he acts that certain way, then he will get to do that cool sensory thing he likes so much. Also -- he might be "calmed down" too much vs. "learning to calm himself down." This is not a pleasant thing and I don't think it should be too hard on a child. But at the same time -- my son needs to do what he can to regulate himself instead of it being someone else's job to regulate him. But he needs to be majorly set up for success. In my own personal experience in my little town..... it is ABA providers (and surely not everyone -- but the ones I have worked with) and special ed teachers who are really good at the intersection of sensory and behavior. The OTs do not have a lot of knowledge/experience with ABA-style behavior. The thing is -- an OT does not need ABA-style behavior with every client. But an ABA provider needs sensory stuff for every client, b/c every client is going to have some kind of sensory need. Our provider does use sensory-friendly games as social rewards and in pairing. She does a leg squeeze thing that my son adores. She does deep-pressure hugs -- but she does these as a social reinforcer. She does not do them with this "now it is time for the deep-pressure hug part of therapy, I am going to do it in this serious way." She does it like -- "now we are playing a game where I catch you and give you a big squeeze." She used to hold him and have him say "spin" and then she would spin around with him -- it was helping him learn to ask for things, and also meeting a sensory need for him, and also teaching him that it is fun to do things with another person. So she (ABA therapist) is using sensory as a tool. This really bothers some people who think it should not be a tool, it should just be something kids need, they need to have their sensory needs met, it should not be conditional in any way. So there are a lot of ways I am comfortable with it being a tool. There are other times when I do not find it acceptable, my son's sensory needs will be met. That is my call. The same as it is my call to say if he is tired and should be cut slack, or if he is not tired, and shouldn't be cut slack, but held to a higher standard. Now -- I need to listen to other people and accept their advice and guidance. But it is my call. Even if someone else is with my child, it is my business, and they will need to listen to me if I say "he didn't sleep well last night, so back off." Or, if I say, "he is playing you, you need to expect a little more from him, and he will realize he can't get away with some stuff with you," that needs to be listened to, also. But in reality that is where I have changed a provider. It is easier for me to say "take it down a notch," than to say "pick it up a notch." I do not feel comfortable in that role, personally. It is easier for me to be the non-enforcer who says "go easier." I don't want to be the enforcer, I do not care for it. I could see that just depending on the individuals involved, though. That is just what I have seen in my town. This is also where there is an idea of "total demands." A demand can be any kind of demand. Like -- environmental (it is loud or bright or very windy, if any of those things are distracting), social (it is hard to follow the social things going on), sensory (sensory needs not met), behavior (the standards for behavior are difficult to meet), and etc. There is a total demand that are a composite of all the demands that are present. I have read a really good blog post about this, but I can't find it now. It is really good, though.

http://www.sensationalbrain.com/ They use more than one thing, but this sensational brain is a lot of my son's sensory folder. They have the stop light and the spinner that can move from green to yellow to red. He has a choice of activities (like board maker or visual schedule little velcro tiles/icons) depending on whether he needs to "activate" or "calm down" or whatever. I do not do it so formally at home, but I like how they do it at school. I have a good impression. I have some print-outs with two more websites, that have to do with the sensory folders, I am going to try to find them. Edit: this model is more about increasing regulation in a bit of a long-term way, and it is also about just doing things throughout the day. It is not a model where you do something short-term and then there is a permanent increase. I believe this is the realistic model for my son. I don't believe this needs to be the model for everyone, but I think it is what is appropriate for my son. I have an older son who made real progress in OT and then exited OT. It is a different situation. But this model is also not a "OT cash cow" model. The OTs want it to be something that parents learn about it, and then parents do it. They do not see it as "well, we will do it for an hour once or twice a week." It is not that kind of thing. My older son had the model where he did intense work for an hour a week, I did some stuff with him during the week for practice, and he made progress in his goals. It just depends. My older son has had two OTs (one school and one private). My younger son has had a different 3 OTs (one at pre-school, I had him in private OT a while, and now one at school). It is not the same experience, different ones have a different focus. They are also going by the traits of the child. I do not like too much "one size fits all" OT. I like it when they are doing different things with different kids, and the goals and models make sense. But either way -- it helps to know which model they are operating under, what their goals are, etc. I do not like it when it seems like they have one intervention that is their favorite intervention, and they just do it with everybody. Or when it really seems like stuff I could be doing, but they don't explain much. But the OTs who want the parents to do daily sensory activities are very willing to share this information with parents, they believe it is helpful and they want to help children. I do find it helpful. Since we also do ABA, there are times when one behavior is going to be seen by an OT, possibly, as "sensory seeking" and neurologically based. By an ABA therapist, it may be seen as attention-seeking or escape (or access) behavior. My son does not have access behavior very often (aka acting wild in hopes of being given the iPad, b/c he is given the iPad to calm down after being wild ----- if it was a behavior and not a sensory thing). It is up to me, honestly, to decide if I find the sensory explanation or the behavior explanation helpful at any moment in time. I am very free to know my son and what he is like, and sometimes think he is having a sensory moment, and sometimes think it is more of a behavior moment. It is nobody else's business to decide that for me. But I think that a lot of times ---- it is extremely helpful for me to view things in a sensory way, and address them in a sensory way. That concept is very helpful. That is what is good. That is not quite the same as saying "spending an hour at therapy" is amazing. I think the activities at therapy are good, but in a slow, developmental way. That is just his situation. He does not have the "quick, targeted progress" situation because that is not how he was born or how he is right now at his current age. A year from now he could be in a place where he will be in a "quick, targeted progress" situation -- I think it is possible. There are a lot of times when the behavioral explanation makes more sense than the sensory explanation for my son. There are kids where it is always or 95% sensory, they do not have the same behavioral explanations. That is just not the kid I have. I have a personal opinion that that is the case a lot more with kids who are sensory defensive, and trying to avoid things. Then it does not make a lot of sense to treat that in a behavioral way, and this is where parents of these kids will prefer OT and find ABA to be not-so-effective. But sometimes I can have a difference of opinion with people who think everything is about sensory, b/c it is for their kids, so they will wonder if I am doing things wrong with my son. But usually if I talk to them they can see why I am doing things in a way that make sense.

Yay! That is awesome progress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is incorporated into a drama/acting/film-making program in my town, that is for middle school kids. I hear good things about it. There is a lot of built-in role-playing and discussion, but it is not really obvious that it is a "social skills program" to the kids who participate in it. That is what I hear anyway. But I do hear good things about the role-playing stuff. I hear it is helpful and also that kids are more likely to have buy-in and interest (compared to some options that kids who are in middle school might not be as interested in).

socialthinking.com

Learning about sensory needs, and talking to people about sensory needs, has been really, really helpful. But as far as OT itself? It has not been something where I am seeing any obvious benefit. I think it is beneficial, but it is not really a "wow" thing for my son. I have been disappointed before when I hoped/expected he would have results I know other people have had with OT. I know people who have them! It is real! I just did not have them with my son like they did. The good news is that sensory needs are really well-accepted in my town now, everyone who works with my son is aware of sensory needs and planning things where they are building in sensory activities or whatever. I am very happy with the school OT he has right now. From talking to her, she thinks my son benefits, too. But, from what she says, my son doesn't have some certain weaknesses that are ones where she is really helpful. He is not over-sensitive to anything, and his motor planning is good. So he is just not going to have the same benefit as kids where those are the things that will really help them. But I do think it is beneficial, just in a more low-key way. He is making improvement in his goals. If we were not having sensory strategies for him anyway, with everybody, already ----- I would probably appreciate it a lot more. But it is such an autism thing, there are not really people in my town who don't believe in sensory or don't do anything for it. People do not all handle it in just the same ways, but everyone is aware and has got a strategy (or set of strategies). I have been to two lectures/presentations about OT and sensory needs and OT and regulation (and stuff), and they were really good presentations, and helpful to me, and I had a good chance to have questions answered. But I literally talk to people, and walk away having been told they think that if I give him time to play outside, that I am doing what they think is best for him. (And if I am just generally aware of it and stuff.) They will say "he seems to seek out what he needs" in a good way. (Or he lets me know what he needs, or I see what he needs.) We do have a Body Sock and some things like that, but I consider it all to be pretty low-key. It is just something we do. But that is just him. I am very happy for the kids who do see the much greater (or more obvious) benefit. It is a good deal! Right now my son has school OT and he has a sensory folder that he does throughout the day (there are 3 categories of things, either calming or activating or something else). I am happy with how that is going. I am not choosing to have him in private OT right now, though I do have him on a waiting list at a certain place. But I am not sure I will have him go. I am not sure it is the most beneficial thing for him right now, compared to other options I have.

I am also disappointed by that BCBA's representation of her profession. I have not had any experience like that. Also, I have read a few things that say they think parent training and parent involvement lead to more progress. I think the parent training and involvement is very good. I have even had some training for my daughter, she has gotten to be part of some formal peer training. She has also been part of informal peer training (I do not know the extent really) when she has been a peer model in some things with him. These are supposed to be good things to do!

I have read two of the Hanen books. They are available to check out from a resource library in my town. I loved them, too. I have heard the same thing about non-verbal communication teaching reciprocity. My son has a language delay, but he is moving forward in non-verbal (which I think we call visual ---- just to be confusing). It is supposed to transfer (we hope) to his language skills as he develops language skills.

Prompts are just one little kind of scaffolding. Scaffolding includes a bunch of things. With scaffolding -- you do still probably ask yourself, "could I do a little less." But explaining something is not the same as a verbal prompt. If you explain something, and then in the future, it is helpful to your child -- that sounds like a good kind of scaffolding, or a good kind of explanation. If you are explaining how and why -- that seems good. It sounds like those are all "cognitive strategies." A prompt is a "behavioral strategy." It is more about just doing something, because it is what you do. It is less about having an understanding of a social situation. But if you are teaching a skill "notice non-verbal cues" ------ it is just so easy to say "look, watch, now do you see?" and things like that. It is so easy to do. It is natural. But it is maybe not the most effective. Let's say we want to play a game where there are group of kids in a circle. One is the leader. The leader is a secret, the object of the game is to find out who the leader is. All the kids start out marching or clapping, then the leader changes to a different action, and as kids notice, they change, too. But not all the kids will notice the leader, they will notice when several other kids have already started the new action, and not know who was the first. The leader stays the leader until all (or almost all) the other kids have realized who it is, and are watching that kid, and so they all change to the new action at almost the same time. So -- your child is not noticing until half the other kids are doing the same action. This gets into -- did the child notice but have trouble in changing their action b/c motor planning? But ignoring that or accounting for that.... So -- a prompt could be saying "look at John." A prompt could be pointing. A prompt could be tapping your child on the shoulder. These are the possible prompts. Of these -- we would expect "look at John" to be least effective. Is the child going to be scanning the group? Or is the child going to wait to be told to scan the group? The worry is -- they will wait to be told. But it might work, too. There is the danger with all form of prompts, but it is considered easier to reduce/fade the other kinds. (Ideally you want the cue to scan the group, to be that the child recognizes it will help them figure out the leader and when to change motions, if they will scan the group for visual cues. So -- the child is doing it because it makes sense. The same reason we hope they will scan for visual clues in other settings, just because they realize they can get information that way and they will like having the information so they can join in the group.) Now -- what are other types of scaffolding, that are not prompts, that are possible this activity? And all of these are probably better choices that using prompts at all. One, play the game first with one other person, then with two other people, then with three other people. Start with fewer people and work up slowly. Two, have the child stand right next to the leader, or near the leader, at first. Three, an adult stands behind the leader -- it will make the leader more noticeable -- the adult can stand farther back over time. Four, have the kids hold drum sticks or pom poms, maybe it will make it a lot easier for the child to notice when the action is changed. Five, practice doing the actions and switching between them, separately from the game, so that your child has practice in just doing that -- it might be helpful if they have trouble just moving between the different actions even when there are no other demands (like scanning the group to notice who the leader is). Six, consider altering the game in another way -- is your child getting too wound up and excited and not paying attention? Can this change to a quiet, sitting game, where the action is putting your hands on your head or shoulders or elbows, instead of a more active game? Could you work up to doing the game in a more active way? Or vice versa, if active is easier than quiet for your child? Seven, could you bring in a cognitive strategy? Talk about how you look around and notice where other kids are looking, if they are looking at one kid, maybe they are looking at the leader, etc. All of those are other ways to scaffold, none of them are "prompts." But out of all of these, often direct verbal prompting is the most easy, natural, habitual thing to do. It is for me, I have to watch myself on it. But really the whole point of an activity where the child is supposed to: scan a group of kids and notice a non-verbal cue and respond to the cue by changing his actions and then identify the leader ---- it is for the child to do those things. Getting from Point A, the child doesn't do those things, to Point B, the child does all those things ----- how do you get there? What if just playing the game more times does not help? What if you basically know your child lacks those skills? Then you can look at scaffolding. Then you can look at task analysis (what exactly is required for a child to succeed in this game, and at what step is my child not succeeding, and what can we do about it). Then you can think about teaching a skill that is part of the game, or making the game easier, or using a prompt. If your child is pretty close -- a prompt can work. If your child is actually missing a skill or very low in a skill that is part of the game ---- just always giving the answer may not do anything to teach that skill. But if it is just a random day and your child is doing this ---- the default is often going to be "look" "look that way" "do you notice?" etc. etc. But if the child can play this game, and thinks it is a fun game ---- the child receives a huge natural reward (enjoying the game, playing the game) for scanning other children for non-verbal cues. Ideally they are both going to be improving this skill, and also, increasing their enjoyment of practicing this skill, because they are finding that it is fun and naturally rewarding. So ideally you are addressing the skill, and the desire to use the skill. We have scenarios sometimes with my son -- he quits being engaged in an activity. This great, therapeutic activity -- what good is it if the child doesn't want to play? We have two main directions. One, he is not engaged b/c he is missing a skill. So -- change the game, or work on a skill that has been identified through watching him. Two, maybe he is not engaged b/c it is a little boring or else too exciting. We can change the game to make it more fun or more calm, in various ways. But for this too -- it is also possible to be the person going "pay attention, look, stand still, behave," and all those kinds of things. But this is all stuff where -- you might know "hey, this game is great, it is working on scanning, it is working on self-regulation, it is working on gross motor, it is working on noticing and responding to visual cues, it is working on problem-solving," but if your child is not just doing it pretty well -- you may not think "how do I get my child to play this game better?" and a default is verbal prompts like "look, pay attention, see John?" and things like that. And your child is there, the game is going on, your child is even participating in the game ---- but your child may not be becoming more independent in playing the game on his own, maybe he will keep needing those verbal prompts. Edit: but on the other hand, if my child happens to be in a group and this is the game ---- maybe we know this game is not a reasonable goal. But, maybe we know it is a reasonable goal for my son to just be part of the group, doing the motions. Then I think it is fine for someone to be whispering "see, John is clapping now, it is time to clap," b/c we know my son is going to need quite a few examples to understand how this game works, b/c we also know his language skills are not really at a point where we can just give him a verbal explanation. He might need this for a little while just to understand how the game is even played. We may just want him to be having an enjoyable experience with other kids, so that he will think "hey, games are fun" and be motivated to join in games. We might find it a useful thing, even if we are not doing things at the same level as other kids. But we need to ask -- what is my goal for my child? And, am I doing things that make sense? If my son now understands the game, it probably doesn't make sense for me to keep whispering commentary to him. I may be going from being a crutch in a good way (better than not being able to do anything), and going toward being a crutch in a bad way (the child is stuck on crutches, not able to run or jump).

Honestly I think RDI looks really good, and I think, or suspect, it is what is used in the drama program I like so much for my son. I have had such a good experience with ABA I am sad to see people disregard it, but if it is not on the table, then it is not on the table. That is how I feel about certain therapies myself, they just do not make any sense to me when I think of my son. They don't seem right for him. I think that is a fair opinion to have.

Sbgrace --I get what you are saying. I think it robs a child when they are given direct teaching and don't need it, they are robbed of a chance to learn! They are robbed a chance to figure something out! Those are huge things to be robbed of. But for where we started from -- we did start with direct teaching. We just want to move away from it as we are able to move away from it. I still think -- the concept of prompt hierarchies is very helpful. It was really helpful for me to learn that verbal prompts are the most difficult kind of prompt to fade. Edit: the way it has worked, we have needed direct teaching for one game, for one situation.... then there is a different game a year later ----- we can go into that game and not need to do direct teaching. It is a lot more natural. It is just -- hey, here is a game, kids are playing it for fun, oh, part of the game is looking at where kids are moving their eyes. Now -- we do not go "oh, let's directly teach this game," it would be a bad thing to do, it would be doing too much, in a bad way. But that was not Point A where he started. It is Point A where some kids start ---- and I do agree, it doesn't make sense to do direct teaching for kids who do not need it. It is robbing them. But if my son has no idea what is going on, at all, and we do direct teaching at first -- we are giving him a gift. But when we are at Point G for him, what may be Point A for many kids who did not start in the severe range, then if we are doing things that are good and appropriate ----- that doesn't mean the things we did back at Point A were bad. They are different. But keeping kids at Point A? When they could be moving on? I think that is bad. But I think it is important for me to feel like -- whatever stage we are at, we are doing things that are good. Just because we are doing less-advanced things at a point in time, those things are not worse, they are the right thing at the right time. But -- I feel very strongly about verbal prompts, and I think it is information a lot of people do not know. Some people think a verbal prompt is more natural than a visual prompt ---- and maybe it is more natural in the sense that parents do it more. But it is considered the most difficult kind of prompt to fade, and I accept that as a basically true statement. I also think ----- probably, when you have an RDI consultant modelling things for you and watching you and giving feedback ------- you are going to get the message ----- don't talk too much and don't give too many instructions. But for someone who does not have a consultant ---- I think it is something where you are not going to automatically know that, I think it is a natural tendency for a lot of parents. It was a major natural tendency for me and I think one of the top things I have had mentioned to me when I have had people observe me. I could be wrong -- maybe RDI consultants like verbal prompts -- I would be surprised to hear it, though. From everything I know about it, they are trying to get away from overprompting. They want kids to notice things on their own, not be told to notice them.

That doesn't look intimidating to me. She is doing some restating of what the child has said. She is doing some expanding of what the child has said. I have been told in the past, a "one-up" rule where you add one word to what the child has said, or use either the same number of words in your response back to the child, or that number plus one. It is still good to talk in long flowing phrases that provide a good language model, sometimes. But a lot of times you want to talk less, because you want to use fewer words so the child can have an easier time. I also have been warned from "testing" or "quizzing" a child -- it is aversive, and it is not natural. So there is nothing going for it. If you are going to "quiz" a child, you can do it by just waiting for (or creating) a natural opportunity for it to come up. So it is an authentic communication experience for the child, and will have meaning for the child. Also to increase the child's motivation to communicate ----- which you are not supposed to do things to harm a child's motivation to communicate with you. I think it is stuff that is possible to do just by trying to be really conscious. And then it can get to be a habit, it can get easier. I also do think, it is okay to ask some questions, especially about things my child is known to like to talk about. It is not aversive to ask him about something that he likes and that I know is not difficult for him to talk about. I do a thing where I preview the answer (okay, so my son is very delayed) sometimes.... before asking the question, I can use a word from a likely answer so that it is familiar in his head. Not all the time -- but it is a thing to do. I know what they mean in this video, though, and I agree. But with previewing I think it is a little different - you are setting up your child for success and a pleasant experience, not quizzing him. My son also has a history of non-responding (aka not answering questions or ignoring bids to interact/speak whether a question or just a bid of some kind) and GEEZ there are a lot of things to do and not do for this.... that I do and do not do. B/c I do NOT want to set my son up for non-responding, I want to set him up for responding. There are so many ways to do this (or not do this) just by seeing what he is doing and wondering if I can add to his experience by my bid to engage, or if I am just going to interrupt him or annoy him (possibly aversive). I want to add value to him, so that he will find me motivating, and set myself up as someone he will want to respond to. And alternately -- not try to engage him in potentially aversive ways (like questioning/quizzing can be). But I am coming up on almost 3 years post-diagnosis, and even 5 years ago I had an EI speech therapist coming to observe me and give me feedback on my communication style with my son, and how to be responsive to him and create situations, etc, all of that stuff. It does get easier over time, even though there are also new things to learn as time goes by, always new things to learn. It is also really helpful to get feedback, from people watching me and giving me advice. It is very, very helpful. I am lucky I have had that opportunity quite a bit. Edit: I used to follow a ratio of 80/20 of 80% interactions intended to be child-centered, and 20% based on me wanting him to do something (which is a part of daily life with a child, and necessary -- he has to get dressed, he has to get in the car -- this is life -- but this can be done in a more thoughtful way, too) ---- but with a goal of 80/20. Which at the time meant -- just letting some things go, so that more could be on his agenda, b/c honestly that needed to happen b/c I was not motivating enough to him, and that is not a good place to be as a parent. So the balance between -- needing your child to do things (aka comply) and also needing your child to desire your attention, your playfulness, your joining him in his activities -- it is something I have read about and discussed with therapists. For a while I also did anything that he requested, b/c his requests were so rare ---- then only gradually did I start telling him no, not right now, or just no, or using "first/then statements," etc, b/c we did not want to reduce his spontaneous requests. But this is all like -- stuff that is in the past, but still stuff I have been thoughtful about. And when I have had to try for an 80/20 ratio ----- that was hard. It is not necessary now, and so things have gotten easier for me. I think less is required of me than was required of me 2 years ago, so I do feel more confident and more able to do things. A lot is mental. When you see things are going well - -you feel more confident. But I think things are already going very well for you ----- I think you have a lot to be confident about. Everyone learns new things or tries new things sometimes! You are also modeling learning a new skill for your son, and that is important, too. Even if he doesn't quite know that is what you are doing, I think it still counts. Or at least -- you can be reminded that it is hard for him, too, b/c you are also doing something hard.

Looking back -- I would consider the chapter headings in the book you linked as "for kids under 8" and consider those objectives. Those are objectives to me. They are not laid out like objectives the writer might be familiar with from her other programs (say, VB-MAPP or ABLLS). Or, maybe she didn't have access to that book. But I am very content to say -- that social referencing is an objective, peer referencing is an objective, initiation is an objective, attending is an objective. I mean -- I know what these things are, I can observe my son either do these things very well, kind-of well, he is making an effort but not quite getting it, he is totally unaware, he is doing the opposite of what he should but on purpose, he is doing the exact wrong thing but trying....... I can see all these things when I am with my son, or when I am watching him, or when I am spying on him. OhElizabeth -- I have a piece of advice. This is something that has just turned out to be very important for my son. Okay -- there is a thing called "a hierarchy of prompts." You go from "most-intrusive" to "least-intrusive." Here is the piece of advice though ----- verbal prompts (aka -- telling something to them verbally) is often mentioned as a very difficult kind of prompt to fade (or reduce). This is very true for my son. What this means is -- as you implement these things, try, as hard as you can, not to get in a situation where you are giving a lot of verbal prompts. If you need to prompt him (and the fact is -- my son needs prompts) there are other ways to give a prompt besides giving a verbal prompt. I have read a bit about this, it is in a lot of books, really detailed that are for autism, but for "not high functioning." Well -- I think it is the same principle, though, even for NT kids ----- they can easily get in a habit of waiting to be told to do things! So if you can try to just *not* give a verbal prompt, if you can give a visual model instead, or a visual cue, or use video modeling, or point at your fingers, or anything.... or just wait ---- wait for him to think, wait for him to figure it out..... anything but come to rely on verbal prompts ----- it is really worthwhile. It has been very worthwhile for us. B/c like the people are saying on the blog ---- you don't want kids who have to wait for a prompt or an instruction. You want kids who are going to initiate, you want kids who are going to peer reference on their own, without even being told to reference their peers. We have had a program over the course of the year, for my son to reference his peers in certain situations, and it has been with fading prompts, and now I am seeing him actually go into situations, look around at what other kids are doing, and, on his own, do whuat they are doing. For example -- this morning I took him to Sunday School. I watched him go in. There were a few kids sitting at a table playing play-doh. There were two kids by the teacher, waiting for her to get out their play-doh (kids have their own cans to be hygienic). My son went over by the teacher and waited his turn to be given play-doh. Then he went and sat at the table and played play-doh. He did all of this just from peer referencing. He was given no direction or re-direction or verbal instruction of any kind. This is huge for my son. It is amazing for him. It is like ---- the result of lots of intentional things done to help him get to this point. Now -- it is also a simple, easily observable thing, it involved no language use (he did not have to talk or ask for help). So -- it is simple in its way. But it is a very good place for him to be considering his diagnosis. So I feel like -- I can see his peer referencing skills in action. I know that he is doing a lot better right now when there is not a need for language. I know that he is doing a lot better right now, when he has some familiarity with the routine (and coming in and doing play-doh is the routine at Sunday School). So I have an idea of where he is at. I also feel like I know ---- just from his IEP, other things I am aware of, or have read, an idea of how peer referencing works and how attending and joint attention and imitation skills were all foundational skills for my son, etc. But also just not always giving him verbal prompts -- I feel it is vital. If verbal prompts are used, they can also be to ask the child a question about what they should be noticing, instead of to give an instruction to do something. But -- even this kind of verbal prompt is one I have to watch with my son, ultimately I don't want him waiting for that verbal prompt. It is also something that was not obvious to me! It is the kind of thing that parents do, and sometimes you are watching your kid and counting to ten or twenty, to see if he will do it, waiting and not just stepping in and saying "do this." Not that this is always the best choice, but sometimes it is a good choice, and I think it is important. But reading about different kinds of prompts and dangers of over-prompting has helped me a lot, I think it is worth looking into if your son seems to need prompts. He may not need prompts -- but my son does need prompts a lot of the time, he just does not need to have prompts forever, and that means we have to be thoughtful and I have needed to learn these principles.

I looked through the blog... some of the examples are things we have done under "initiation" or "peer referencing." Peer referencing is when kids notice what their peers are doing and think "so I should do what they are doing" without anyone telling them "hey, look at your friends, what are they doing, should you be doing that too?" I know a bit about how we have tried to teach this -- a lot comes down to prompt reduction (going from pointing it out to not pointing it out anymore). But it is the kinds of stuff where every idea counts, because it takes a lot of different ideas.

We do not have this therapy available in our area. However -- in my son's drama therapy, they do activities/games to help with social referencing. He has improved with these games. This is stuff where -- you are noticing what other children do, copying them, doing something as a response to what they have done -------- all those good social referencing things that are a little more advanced. I think those kinds of activities are very good -- it seems like that is at least a part of the book. I have been impressed with what I have seen. I don't know exactly what the drama therapy program is using, though. They played a superhero game that my kids still play (my son attended with a sibling who attended as a typical peer). From glancing through tables of contents and descriptions ----- I think I have seen the social referencing in practice, and I am impressed. Other things -- have not been goals yet, or have probably not been done in the same way. But my son has had real-world gains from drama therapy and a lot of it is focused on social referencing. I think it is this kind of thing, in general. I know -- that is general -- but people practice things in their own way, too, with any therapy, to some extent. For one section where they are saying "coordination," that is for example what I have said people incorporate as a goal with bal-a-vis-x. So that is probably similar, just with bal-a-vis-x. Which is so, so popular here (as I always mention). That is just how it is sometimes. I do think that these things are covered by various people in our community, even without us having RDI providers. Our insurance will not cover it anyway, no local insurance will cover it, so it is one of those things. I don't think it means other people are not incorporating ideas from RDI. But, I am not aware of anyone getting specialized training in it, either. Just one of those things, it is how it is where we live. It is definitely good for me to read through the tables of contents and ask myself how we are reaching these goals, which are appropriate, and if there are any that we are neglecting.

I read my son Magic Treehouse and Harry Potter! He didn't miss out :) My ending-K daughter is not writing any sentences. She did write To Mom From E I Love You on her Mothers Day card, and that is the most writing that has come home from school this year. It is up on the refrigerator now :) I am really appalled by thinking of 3 sentences a day. It is just..... I don't see how many kids could do it. My daughter took a lot of pride in the card she gave me, I don't see her having this joy and pride if she were getting pressured to churn out 3 sentences a day when she was really ready for writing I Love You, three weeks before summer vacation. I have a thing -- I don't want people to think that I send my kids to "that kind" of Kindergarten environment. I do not like it, I am happy my area of the country has not succumbed to it, and I don't want people from the Internet to think I have my kids in that kind of place. I think it is a sweet, developmentally appropriate place, overall. But sure -- it is not perfect, and it is not a fully individualized learning environment. It is just not something that seems actively harmful to me, the way "3 sentences a day" does. But I don't know where my grandchildren will grow up someday -- I hope my kids will not think it is an okay place to send my future grandkids! I hope they would consider homeschooling instead.