Jens:

TEACCH would never "turn a child autistic". It is a very sucessful, highly structured program. Nor could it do damage to a child. TEACCH is taught in a very positive manner and respects the needs and behaviors of the autistic child,

Dad,

The research I gave you is good. There is another site I should have saved that discusses the difficulty of assesing the TEACCH program because it covers so many different needs and areas of functioning.

It is a completly proven method.

Jens:

TEACCH would never "turn a child autistic". It is a very sucessful, highly structured program. Nor could it do damage to a child. TEACCH is taught in a very positive manner and respects the needs and behaviors of the autistic child,

Dad,

The research I gave you is good. There is another site I should have saved that discusses the difficulty of assesing the TEACCH program because it covers so many different needs and areas of functioning.

It is a completly proven method.

Bober,

I fully agree with your assesment and use of teach. It is a great program.

As someone who works in Special Education and has been trained in higher levels of both methods, I can see the benefits of both. My personal preference is TEACCH for several reasons but sometimes I feel that people get so caught up in THIS method or THAT method that they fail to see that there are BOTH methods which both the teacher and the student can benefit from.

Each method seems to work from opposite ends of the spectrum but so rarely do we have a classroom filled with one or the other but mostly all in between. For myself and my experience, I have found that the ABA methods have worked really well for the "higher functioning" students in the classroom and the TEACCH method seems to work best for the rest. The problem with this is that in a room of 100 Autistic children that I may encounter, only 3-5 would really be considered "higher functioning". I still find parts of the ABA method to be useful with a good deal of my students but if I have to use one method all or most of the time, TEACCH is the method of choice.

What I cannot understand is how someone who only has real knowledge of only one method can spend their time talking negatively about the method that they know so little about. Progress can be made with both methods but you have to KNOW the method, USE the method, and know WHEN to use the method. Sometimes it is easier to blame the method of teaching instead of accepting some type of responsibility, though. Using one method and thinking that it is the only method that can be used, is simply closed-minded and a good way to deprive the child of possible advancement in life.

Reading an article or the opinion of someone on a message board does not qualify as experience or knowledge in my opinion. Really learning about the method, training in the method, and using the method is what makes a difference. There is no substitute for experience, a book or web site article will never replace it.

Respectfully,

Nefi

The point was (and is) to remediate autism to the fullest extent possible in those children who have full-blown 299.00 autism. ABA-DTT has been demonstrated at least 7 times now to be effective in achieving this in roughly 50% of the children completing the program. TEACCH cannot meet that. In fact, TEACCH's own publications assert that they believe that autism is a lifetime disability and the insular environment that the TEACCH classroom presents is seldom duplicated in the real world.

To belittle professional opinons like the one I posted here originally as just so much messageboard schmatter is a red herring at best. It is - not about favoring a preferred method, it is about giving children the greatest chance at remediation possible. Schoppler's best kids only gained 3-7 IQ points from an average starting point of 66, hardly proff that they are achieving remediation.

In the end, it may well turn out that the optimum choice is to offer ABA_DTT to all children with full-blown autism as EI, and then those who do not respond to it can be placed in the TEACCH program to see what can be done from there.

I respect your opinion and I think that everyone should have an opinion. It is obvious that you are well versed in ABA and have read lots of negative research about TEACCH. I am curious how many times you have attended TEACCH seminars and how often you have worked with the TEACCH methods to see, yourself, how it works for others.

Research is good but we both know that research can be funded and made to look one way or the other. In a perfect world, this would not be, but it for sure can. Real research is done by getting your hands dirty and doing all that you can to assist a person no matter what the method. That could mean using ABA, TEACCH, or even the Phony-Baloney Method.

You are correct, it is not about favoring one method. Think about that and think again. I favor the method that has worked the best for me and I work with Autistic children (low-functioning) for my career. I do what works best and not what a researcher has suggested. THAT is giving children the greatest opportunity.

I do not believe that autism can be "cured". It is not a disability anyway. The disability is from the aggressiveness, being prone to self-injury, the mental retardation, etc...those are the disabilities. One of the biggest downfalls of trying to "cure" an autistic person is that you end up taking away what make them themselves. Most of the time that leads to depression and medication for it. Trying to rid and hide their traits is a good way to diminish their self-esteem as well.

Again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some people prefer to form theirs from reading some studies and others will form theirs from being trained with both methods and working with them in real-life practical settings.

Nefi

proudliberaldem

In your rejection of the possibility of a child be labelled as autistic, you are dead wrong!

The diagnosis of autism is NOT based on anything but observation of behaviour, thus if behaviour changes as a result of the environment, so will the diagnosis.

TEACCH is based on the premise that EVERY student needs visual structures, needs to have small spaces where they are not exposed to normal sensory stimuli. TEACCH is great for some kids, but due to the absence of credible data being collected, it does not have a feedback mechanism, that ensures the quality of the program.

ABA measures if a given program gives the right result, and documents the efficeincy. All of the central aspects of TEACCH could be included in an ABA program, but should ONLY be used when it benefits the child.

The problem I have with TEACCH is the THEORY of what is wrong and the focus on WHAT IS WRONG with the child, not what the potential of the child is.

Having an autistic child is not always easy, but our obligation as parents is to ensure the best possible development.

I am appalled at how ineffective TEACCH has been for my son, and it is absurd to hear how many accepts this a program as the end all be all of autism programs.

As I said "TEACCH never TURNS a child autistic". TEACCH only helps the Autistic child learn to function and make progress.

BTW Autism is a medical diagnosis. While the schools play a small part, a doctor and ONLY a doctor can label a child autistic. Often the school is asked to fill out surveys about the child as part of the identification process, but the final diagnosis is made by a doctor.



TEACCH looks at the whole child and his/her potential and then finds ways to unlock that potential. TEACCH uses the idea that the autistic child needs to know a)where they are going; (b) what to do when they get there; and (c) what comes next. This is often started at a concrete level using objects, then to pictures (boardmaker is often used) with picture exchange skills developed as needed, then the child moves to a written checklist. Sensory therapies take place at the same time as part of the daily schedule. All aspects of the child's developement are considered.

It is a well thought out and logical program. I've never seen it NOT work for a child, though some make further and faster progress than others. I've also used it with MIMR students and have been very successful with them as well.



No TEACCH is based on the premise that autism must be looked at as another culture and we need to understand how the autistic individual "looks" at things to better help them. We look at their behaviors as a communication and work hard to understand what they are trying to tell us. BTW the small spaces are based on the physical need the austic person has for limited spaces around them. Many autistic individuals can't handle large open spaces for a long period of time. This is a scientific fact. One autistic lady designed a device for herself that "hugs" in a small enclosed space. She goes in as needed to calm herself down.

TEACCH has a great feedback system and experts come to observe classrooms where the (formal) TEACCH method is being used. There is a great deal of feadback and support from Chapel Hill, NC as well as other peers running the program.

There is plenty of credible data supporting the TEACCH program and I am very comfortable using it as it is appropriate in my classroom and helping others to learn about it.

If I ever were to have an autistic child, I would insist upon them being in a TEACCH program.

The ABA vs. TEACCH dilemma will always be argued. Applied Behavior Analysis is a very good way of educating children with autism. It provides very good data on what is to be worked on, the progression that child goes through, and what steps may be taken next. The student can work on becoming very successful at a variety of education tasks and social skills, as well as daily living skills. The one thing that I believe to be a negative of ABA is if people are working with a student that are not “on the same page” it can create inaccurate data.

Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication handicapped Children (TEACCH) is also a very good way of working with a child of autism. It provides a set schedule of icons that is followed. It is a very good way of building independence and can be easily learned no matter what level the child may be at.

In my experience with teaching children with autism and having used both methods, I feel that I like using the TEACCH method better. I am not saying that ABA is not a good method, but I believe in the basis of the TEACCH method. Keep it highly structured use picture representations, build on there strengths towards independence.

In closing, I urge parents and educators of autistic children to become familiar in both methods. This will allow for the people that are closest to the child to be able to make the best decision for the needs of that child. That it really is not ABA vs. TEACCH, but all of us just trying to do and believing that what we are doing is best for our sons, daughters, or students.

I think we are wasting words here.

I am chocked by the lack of professionalism I have meet form local TEACCH providors, and you confirm all the things that has been totally ineffective for my son.



Again, Again - Autism diagnosis is not a lab test with a yes/no outcome, it is an observation of lack of typical skills. Are you really saying that environment has no impact?

How does this not coincide with resorting to visualisation for all students?



Thanks for pointing out in your last line, that YOU DO NOT NEED TO LIVE WITH THE SHORTCOMINGS OF TEACCH, you do not need to live with the consequences of your actions and views. You do not have a lifetime commitment to a child in need of help. On the other hand you have career choices to defend.



I just can't stand the selfrighthous attacks on the only method that has a documented ability to help the kids make up lost ground, rather than just slowing down the decline. This especially from people that have not taken the time to actually figure out what the two methods offer.

TEACCH is much less demanding of teachers, and the relation between the children and educators is much less intense. TEACCH does not give teacher burnout at the same rate, it does not lend the same risk of abuse, it does not offer the same development potential for the children and it does not give the parents the support to help their kids most effectively.

TEACCH is about finding ways to live with the handicap, whereas ABA is about overcoming the handicap to the greatest extent.

As others I will urge all parents to examine both methods intensively. In my book you should ALLWAYS start using ABA and if need be switch to TEACCH if you child needs the visualisation and TEACCH living rules later. No need to create a surrogat society if it is not needed.

ABA is often blamed for not respecting the nature of autism. At the end of the day it is important to figure out whether you believe that the autism should define the child or you should view the child seperate from the autism.

Just a parent that has the responsibility for the rest of my sons life, and must do what is best for my son, not what is easy.
Regards;

All the TEACCH people that I know are true professionals and I have even worked with the folks back in NC. I have the highest respect for their skills and knowledge.



I never mentioned the impact of environment, ONLY the method of diagnosis. It is a medical diagnosis usually first identified as PDD and then later Autism.



Students learn in many different modes, visual, kinesthetic, aural, and others. We are not "resorting" to visualization, but rather using the mode best suited to the needs of the student. BTW teach also uses other modes such as kinesthetic. It is not restricted to one mode.



Do NOT put words in my mouth. I never said any of that. NOR DID I SAY TEACCH HAS SHORTCOMINGS. TEACCH is a strongly researched method for helping the autistic student to reach their potential.



TEACCH is not a stopgap measure, it allows kids to adapt to being autistic and reach their potential. An autistic person doesn't have "lost ground" to make up, they need to learn to function in their environment in the best way possible that gives them the most independance, and TEACCH does that. Autism doesn't get "worse". Behaviors can and do increase, especially learned ones, but the autism itself is what it is. The only "type" of autism that I've seen that gets worse is (I believe) Reyes Syndrom (I'm not 100% sure on the name). I've had one student with that, and it is a degenarative illness and much tougher to work with.



LESS demanding. We spent HOURS and HOURS after school making materials plus home time. We spent hours and hours in homes helping the parants develop the materials for home use (so much for your "lack of support for parents" arguement), and my relationships with autistic students was amoung the most intese I've even been through. Don;t even try to say its less demanding.

TEACCH is about understanding the culture of autism and working throught that understanding to "reach" the student and help them progress. It is an outstanding program.



All parents must start with TEACCH and fully support the program. ABA should only be used if TEACCH absoutly does not work. It is imperative that we all understand the culture of autistm in order to better reach out to the autistic student and help them reach their potential.



It is always the child first then the disability, that is the beauty of TEACCH. It allows me to work with the child in a structered manner and in such a way that the Autism is secondary to them being a child. The TEACCH classroom and classroom routines are designed for them to be comfortable and function in. Using the TEACCH method allows for learnig to take place and for them to be as independant as possible. We look at the whole child. Social Skills are included, free play is included(free time is the hardest thing for the autistic child to deal with), even life skills are included.

In short TEACCH isa wonderful method and well worth bringing in to the classroom and the home for the autistic student.

I fully concur that YOU do not accept that TEACCH has shortcomings, yet TEACCH's claimed research base is not based on documentation that can be independently validated. They are done internally with no peer review, and research is anecdotal in nature.
Back to the point of the quote, which was; YOU do not have an autistic child, therefore YOU do not have to face that choosing TEACCH over ABA results in a child with lower IQ, lower social competence and a lower chance of an independant life.

A person with autism has tremendous ground to make up. Their linguastic development is a central criterion in the diagnosis, so is their ability to function in a social setting. Otherwise they would not receive the diagnosis!
The central thing is how to help most efficiently, and the unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness provided by the TEACCH community offer little help. TEACCH helps many people with autism, but is it effective enough?
Kids in TEACCH programs do develop rapidly, yet typically much slower than same age normal kids. ABA is the only method that has solid, albeit, not exhaustive documentation that kids on average develop faster (Comparative gain in ex IQ) than similar age kids.
TEACCH has many claims, yet no valid documentation!

There is no such thing as "a culture of autism". Autism is a handicap that makes is more difficult to function in society. The need to be isolated that many people with autism has, are defensive measures to cope with the stress of a situation that they cannot cope with.
You are obviously a competent engaged teacher and TEACCH is without doubt a good program, yet as the effect is not appropriately documented it can only be considered experimental - albeit a 40 year experiment with limited documentation.
If your son or daugther had cancer in an early stage would you go with an experimental treatment based on hermal medicine with no independantly documentet effect or would you go with chemotherapy with the objective documentation that goes along with it? TEACCH is much like the herbal medicine.

Jens,

Sorry I couldn't reply sooner. Thanks for the complement of being an competent and engaged teacher. Part of that means being back in my classroom getting ready for the kids to return on July 24th That's why I haven't been on for a few days...that and going to America in concert on July 4th.

I hope we have more parents as involved as you are. That always makes our jobs easier. You are without question an caring and active parent. Your child is most fortunate to have you in his corner.

Now to our discussion



No TEACCH doesn't have shortcomings. No method or strategy is perfest but TEACCH is an outstanding program that does a great job of adresssing the needs of the autistic student (and his/her family).

I actually have a cousin with a son who may well be autistic. All the signs are there (PDD right now) and I've already started talking with her about TEACCH. Hopefully the L.A. school system offers it.

IQ's never vary more than 5 points either way. The IQ is nothing more than how fast a student learns a new concept, not a measure of how smart a person is or how much they know. A person with a higher IQ will [most likely] learn, for example, a computer program faster than a person with a lower IQ. ANY programs that claim to chiange an IQ are to be considered highly questionable at best and a fraud at worst. IQ's don't change. A child can be "trained" to take any test resulting in an improved score...that only means they did better with the test, not an improved IQ.

Using TEACCH results in an independant child with social skills. All aspects of the child's needs are considered in the program.



Linguistic development, social skills, and behaviors do play a part in diagnosing autism, but it is in the end a medical diagnosis. I cannot place a label of PDD or autism on an IEP unless that diagnosis comes from a doctor.

Again you cannot quote a gain in IQ as an IQ NEVER changes. They were most likely trained in tasks that mimic those on the IQ (WISC often times) test. ANY research based on that would be doubtful and highly questionable. TEACCH research (links are back futher in this thread) is based on real usage and improvement over time. All aspects of the student are considered in the research.




I agree with you on the need (or reasons) autistic individuals seek isolation. It does allow them to escape(?) recover(?) from too much sensory input.

There is a culture of autism, just as the deaf community has a culture. It is a disability, but autistic people have there own rules and ways of adapting to situations, hence it also is a culture. Looking at things through their eyes allows one to better understand the challenges they face and the ways they communicate. For example understanding that many of the behaviors displayed by autistic students are a communication (even and especially the outbursts that sometimes occur).



TEACCH is not experimental and is a proven method of helping students with autism. It is not a "40 year experiment" but a program with 40 years of proven results and positive effects.

My brother has cancer (with a good prognosis) and is seeking out a new radiation therapy only available in Seattle (after he takes a month to heal from his surgery). In other words he (and his doctor) looked at a number of different approaches and chose the one that had the best chance of success with his type of cancer.

The same can be said of TEACCH, it is the program that offers the best chance of success for the autistic child.

You know there is one OTHER group that loves TEACCH...the velcro companies. I think TEACCH keeps them in business

Hope you had a great July 4th!

Thanks for the kind words. Debates like these can be a bit abrasive, so just to set the basis point, I would like to point out, that I think it is commendable when people choose to work with people in need. I think there are good tools in all the dominant methods for autism treatment, and that very few have less than the noblest of reasons for doing/believing what they do.

I do believe that the data collection and the organisation of ABA is superior to other systems, yet the tools used in TEACCH, Social Stories, Power Cards, Floor Time… are equally valid.

Back to the discussion


My son has been in TEACCH preschool and school programs for the past three years, and we have actively been fighting this for the past two years. We worked within the system for the first year, but saw his social capabilities deteriorate and found that the advice we received did not help him – on the contrary. We do not see TEACCH as an outstanding program, but as a system that has huge limitations and which has done significant damage to our son.

We have meet many engaged and kind people that want what they believe is best for our son, yet the 12 teachers and 4 psychologists that have been involved, have not managed to push our son satisfactory. Neither has understood how capable he actually is when supported in the right way. Though he has improved in some areas, the work to transfer these capabilities to normal environments have been abysmal. He did not reapply his basic skills until we removed him from the TEACCH environment. Our experience with TEACCH is simply that our son develops significantly less in that system, than without it.

Luckily, we have finally had the good fortune to escape the TEACCH environment, and get other support set up.



I have seen this claim of IQ being static from TEACCH sources before. It is however not a valid claim, as IQ measures the age equivalent ability to apply your knowledge and abilities, not a measurement of brain function. If you took two people that at age 7 had identical intelligence and one went to school for twelve years and the other one did not, you would see a profound difference in IQ, even though none had been trained specifically in the IQ test.

With regards to fraud Schopler published a survey of the TEACCH programs effect on IQ, where he used two different IQ scales for intake and outcome measurement. That to me is less than ethical.



As mentioned previously TEACCH “research” is not peer reviewed, there is thus no credible evidence behind the system, and the documentation of the 19 year old Young Autism project – which has been berated by the TEACCH community - is still light-years ahead of the TEACCH ditto. That in no way means that TEACCH does not help the kids, yet the documentation is limited.

TEACCH has excellent documentation that institutionalisation rates of people with autism has dropped significantly with the program, yet the documentation that it provides age equivalent development is very poor. Both are valid criteria’s, yet I believe that the latter is the most interesting.

If the goal of intervention is not recovery/normal functional level, then you are short-changing the potential ability of the child. That albeit is not the same as saying that recovery is a realistic outcome for more than a subgroup of the kids with the diagnosis.

Highly esteemed TEACCH researchers like Rita Jordan, describe the TEACCH structure as "a concession to the autistic way of thinking; what is created is an autistic environment where the individual with autism can function" (p. 30 - Jordan et al. June 1998 final report to the DfEE). Recognizing the problem of the child never learning to function in the everyday world, Jordan et al. note that TEACCH has resolved this by creating a "cradle to grave" service (p. 30). There is then little belief or expectation that an autistic individual can ever function normally. While Jordan and Schopler view the autistic child as unable to ever be non-autistic, there is much documentation to the contrary, and therefore I find the unfounded claims of Eric Schopler (TEACCH Founder) dangerous.

I fully concur that many autistic people are helped by systems developed by Schopler and others, yet my experience is that ABA – at least initially is far superior, especially in skills acquisition and in transferring skills to a normal environment

The focus on accepting “the culture of autism” is an accept of behaviours and limitations that will follow the child throughout its life.

Given my own experience, I would NEVER use TEACCH as a first measure. My experience is that it is paramount to view any child as a normal child with problems, rather than an autistic child. The difference between kids with an autism diagnosis is so significant that it is difficult to justify the common classification.

Just out of curiosity, how many years has your son been with the ABA programs?

[quote="proudliberaldem"]IQ's never vary more than 5 points either way. The IQ is nothing more than how fast a student learns a new concept, not a measure of how smart a person is or how much they know. A person with a higher IQ will [most likely] learn, for example, a computer program faster than a person with a lower IQ. ANY programs that claim to chiange an IQ are to be considered highly questionable at best and a fraud at worst. IQ's don't change. A child can be "trained" to take any test resulting in an improved score...that only means they did better with the test, not an improved IQ.[/quote]

BS. Many children with autism have artificially low IQ scores because of the impairment to their ability to communicate and interact with those around them. ABA (which at its heart is based upon Skinner's principles and is actually the basis of all teaching) provides a way to break through the barriers, fostering both expressive communication as well asimitative learning. TEACCH fails in this regard because the core assumption of the TEACCH program is that the autistic state cannot be ammended and therefore the environment must be molded to the child's current level of existance.

Parents who support the TEACCH program do so because:
1) they have never had any alternatives to compare it to because ABA is rarely offered by the public schools and is out of the price range of 75%+ of families and
2) the children are less prone to stress reactions when insulated from the chaos and sometimes abuse presented in the typical school environment.

Take off the blinders and read the meta-analysis of the various studies conducted. The ABA programs with the strictess control over the trainers posted significant gains in testable IQ while TEACCH posted gains which are statistically insignificant.