Bribery! First Shave & Haircut for Conor THEN Back to So Called "Segregated" School

Conor Shows Off His New Shave and Haircut

Nothing wrong with bribery if it helps us get Conor to sit still for a shave and haircut! 

That's what happened this long weekend when I bribed Conor to accept a shave and haircut by indicating first shave and haircut then back to school, the school he loves so much. A school where he receives what the extreme, everybody in the mainstream classroom, ill informed inclusion ideologues deride as a segregated school. Conor accepted the shave and haircut. I handled the shave. Mom handled the haircut.

Conor loves his so called "segregated" school experience.  Every day, as I have pictured on this blog many times, Conor packs his back pack and lunch for school and parks them in front of the door  to get ready for school the next day.  

At school Conor starts his day in a Resource Centre with other students with challenges.  It is a wonderful environment for him to start the day, for breaks and for certain types of life skills activities.   There are adults with experience and skills for handling the unexpected challenges supervising and managing the Resource Centre.  It is a warm and welcoming environment and ensures security for students like our Conor.  Conor receives his primary ABA based instruction in a cubicle adjacent to other students also receiving such instruction.  His aide, who provides the instruction, was trained at the excellent UNB-CEL Autism Intervention Training program and his ABA based instruction is a critically important part of Conor's school day.

Conor does NOT like shaves and haircuts.  Sensory issues are long recognized by health authorities like the American Psychiatric Association as a condition that accompanies autism.  Challenges with sensory issues will now be expressly included as a diagnostic criterion, although not a mandatory criterion, in the DSM5's new Autism Spectrum Disorder.  Challenges with sensory issues, including flashing lights and loud sounds,  are recognized by major theatre chains that put on special autism friendly showings of some movies to accommodate those sensory challenges. Challenges with sensory issues are why we removed Conor from the mainstream classroom where he came home every day with self inflicted bite marks on his hands and wrists.  Challenges with sensory issues are why Conor receives his instruction in a quiet area outside the mainstream classroom.  

Conor loves his so called "segregated" schooling.  Conor's experience, the DSM autism criteria, the successful accommodation of his specific autism challenges, the accommodation of other autistic children by theatre chains will have no impact on the rigid, locked mindset of New Brunswick's extreme inclusion ideologues but it is reality.  If only the extreme inclusion ideologues were still capable of looking at the evidence and understanding that  alternative environments like Conor's Leo Hayes High School resource centre, and his individualized ABA instruction area are in fact an accommodation of his autism spectrum disorder challenges.

I have referred to authorities like the American Psychiatric Association.  The APA recognizes in its new Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnostic criteria (B.4.) that some, but not all, children with autism will have sensory challenges.  So too the Autism Society New Brunswick, during the MacKay Inclusion review informed Professor Wayne MacKay of its position that some autistic students can learn in the mainstream classroom and some can not. It is necessary to look at the evidence in each case and provide the appropriate learning environment based on that evidence. 

In Conor's case no one knows the evidence better than his Mom and Dad. If Education and Early Development Minister Jody Carr or Extreme Inclusion Icon Gordon Porter think differently then I ask them whether they think they could safely provide Conor with a shave and haircut?  I don't think they would try ... and in all fairness ... I wouldn't let them. 

Read more »

Severe Autism and Education: Conor Doherty Votes Yes! to FLEXIBLE Inclusion

Conor receives what full inclusion advocates call a "segregated" education because he receives his ABA based instruction, for his autistic disorder, in a quiet location outside the regular classroom. (Although he does have many activities with other children for outings and other events, such as swimming, apple picking, visits to the Playhouse in Fredericton). 

As his father, I consider the combination of individualized learning environment combined with group outings and activities to be an evidence based approach to accommodating Conor's severe autism challenges that is done in his best interests. In the yellow board picture Conor votes YES! to this evidence based, flexible inclusion approach that has worked so well for him.

Conor loves his schooling as it now is and loves attending school.  Summer vacation is difficult for Conor and he gets very frustrated at times.  One of the tools we came up with for managing his frustration is to have him write on a board the number of days until school with Conor changing it each day.  At 6 am every day Conor jumps up, unprompted, and changes the number.  It helps him understand that school, and the so called "segregated" education he loves, will return. 

Conor has been well accommodated with his individualized learning environment combined with ample opportunities to mix with other kids at school outings.  He loves school and he knows a lot more about his own needs then the full inclusion ideologues who dominate education policy in the current New Brunswick government and who would take the schooling Conor loves away from him.

Read more »

New Brunswick Autism Education: Everyone in the Mainstream Classroom Inclusion Model Continues to Hold Back Progress

I have been a frequent promoter of the progress made in New Brunswick in the education of autistic students. Recent developments though show the extent to which that progress has been uneven with ultimate implementation of changes being left to the School District level. A bilingual and bifurcated Education department in New Brunswick has resulted in some francophone districts preferring to go it alone or to follow models from outside New Brunswick.

Two developments have spurred the  progress that has been made. One is  the training of 4-500 teacher assistants at the excellent UNB-CEL Autism Intervention Training program. The program has received high marks on external review by Dr. Eric Larsson and has included knowledgeable guest speakers like David Celiberti of the Association for Science in Autism Treatment.  The UNB-CEL AIT program has emphasized both quality and integrity with course entry requirements, substantial practicum and examination requirements. Unfortunately the program has been opposed by some in the Department of Education who felt that the program, which resulted from political-parent consultation, represented a loss of departmental influence. The Department is now moving back to what it has wanted all along ...  an in house training program with all the inherent conflicts of interest, quality and integrity issues that in house training brings with it. Some school districts have also refused to enroll teacher assistants in the program particularly in New Brunswick's francophone school districts which have tended to go their own direction in New Brunswick's bilingual and bifurcated education system.

Progress has also been made in modernizing inclusion in New Brunswick schools.  For years the dominant "everybody in the mainstream classroom" approach pushed hard by  the New Brunswick Association for Community Living and by Gordon Porter,  the former chair of the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission,  has held total sway in New Brunswick.  This approach does not reflect the research literature, or the experience of families like ours, which says that not ALL students with autism belong in the mainstream classroom.  I have presented legal reviews and research literature reviews to the MacKay Inclusion Review, (Professor MacKay is one of the worst offenders, and I use the term "offender" intentionally, when it comes to promoting the "everybody in the mainstream classroom" model of inclusion).

My son used to come home with bite marks on his hands and wrists from his days in a mainstream classroom where he was overstimulated, and learning a different subject matter, using different methods than the other children in his class. Once removed from the class for most of his  academic learning his self injury ceased and his school career has been a true joy as I have indicated many, many times on this blog.  Conor has not been sent to a prison like isolation room.  He has been educated in a small side room with an autism trained teacher assistant. The room is decorated with the usual learning tools and is not in the least restrictive. Conor visists the school gym, pool, kitchen and library.  He is around other children there and in the halls.  I have seen children greet him at school many, many times.  Conor's classroom is the school and he is not alone in such accommodations which have been made for other students in District 18.

The concept of the whole school as a classroom or learning environment is not mine. I am not a professional educator and I did not come up with it. The person who did relay that concept to me was Alex Dingwall the Superintendent of School District 18.  The use of the whole school environment. to provide alternative learning locations and accommodation for autistic children who can not function in the mainstream classroom is not mine. It may or may not be Superintendent Dingwall's but it was he who relayed it to me during a settlement conference for a Human Rights complaint I had filed on behalf of my son and which I ultimately withdrew because he has been accommodated in our neighborhood schools here in Fredericton.

I caught some of the CBC coverage of the Moncton child placed in a jail like time out room. I heard Krista Carr of the NBACL offering her commentary without acknowledging that the system in place in that school district is the total inclusion, everybody in the mainstream classroom, model which does not recognize that the classroom is not right for all children and does not put any emphasis on providing alternate learning locations outside the mainstream classroom. The total inclusion model pushed by the NBACL, by the former chair of the NB Human Rights Commission and by Professor Wayne Mackay has failed and harmed some New Brunswick autistic students, including, for a brief period of time, my own son. Thankfully Conor has,  long since his failed mainstream classroom experience, had access to an alternate learning location in our neighborhood schools. The credit for that accommodation does not belong to me, or to Professor Wayne MacKay,  former Human Rights Commissioner Gordon Porter or NBACL official Krista Carr. The credit belongs to educators at School District 18 who have accommodated my son's disability.

Read more »

Autism and Education: CACL Promotes Discrimination Against Autistic Children

The Canadian Association for Community Living, and its provincial counterparts like the New Brunswick Association for Community Living, have done much to help persons with disabilities. Unfortunately despite their many good deeds they have also, for many years, been actively and intentionally promoting discrimination against some children with Autistic Disorders and other children for whom education in the mainstream classroom is not in their best interests because of their disabilities.

The message of the CACL is clear, consistent, and made without regard to the best interests of some children: No excuses for educating children outside the mainstream classroom, no accommodation of children whose disabilities require alternative learning environments, no concern for the best interests of children, like some children with Autistic Disorder, if their best interests require education in a setting outside the mainstream classroom. No excuses, no accommodation, no concern.

As a parent who has long ago requested that my son with Autistic Disorder and profound developmental delays be removed from the mainstream classroom I am offended by the message, relentlessly pushed by the CACL, and here in NB by NBACL, that portrays any request to educate children outside the classroom as an "excuse". My son began his education in the mainstream classroom where he was overstimulated by noise and other conditions in the classroom. He would come home each day with self inflicted bite marks on his hands and wrists. Those bite marks, were evidence. Those bite marks were Conor's way of telling us that education in the mainstream classroom was not in his best interests.

Conor was removed from the classroom and educated primarily in a separate room for academic purposes. He also visits some more social settings for appropriate purposes and for defined activities with an Autism trained, very competent Teacher Assistant. He goes to the school gym (see videos on sidebar of this blog), the kitchen, the pool, the library, the cafeteria and so on but his academic learning takes place in a separate room.

Conor has not suffered socially. Although he does not generally inititiate conversation, and in fact has limited verbal skills, he has been well liked by many children over the past several years. I drive Conor to school and on arrival I have seen several boys and girls approach Conor to greet him, say hi and show real joy at seeing him. More than one child has actually sought Conor out at our home.

The "education system" has accommodated Conor's disability, his special needs. The educators we deal with have sought our input and worked to help Conor; taking into account the realities of his Autistic Disorder including the fact that Conor was overstimulated in the mainstream classroom, was learning a different curriculum using different methods than other students. Conor has received this accommodation because of some conscientious educators and because we fought to get that accommodation. We did so despite the NBACL which is very well entrenched and influential. NBACL carries the CACL message that says that such accommodation is wrong, that the benefit Conor has received is not a sufficient excuse for education outside the mainstream classroom. The CACL message is discriminatory, harmful and offensive.

CACL has been told in the past that the full inclusion model for all is probably discriminatory. In Canada discrimination can be direct, intentional discrimination, or it can result from a failure by service providers to reasonably accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. Yude Hentellef,Q.C. has been legal representative for many disability organizations and persons with disabilities. In 2004 he presented a paper The Fully Inclusive Classroom is Only One of the Right Ways to Meet the Best Interests of the Special Needs Child at the C.A.C.L. National Summit on Inclusive Education in Ottawa, Ontario. Mr. Hentellef reviewed studies, and case law, which indicate that full classroom inclusion is not appropriate for all special needs children and stated:

Page 7:

"The Supreme Court of Canada has categorically rejected the kind of contextual analysis that rests on group stereotypes of what is presumed to be in the best interest of a group of persons, regardless of their disability. The proposal that full inclusion will meet the needs of all special needs children is such a group stereotype. In other words, what may be good for one group is therefore good for all groups, no matter their disability. The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected this approach, which, because of its very nature, is discriminatory. "

Page 8:

"To suggest that even with everything in place in the inclusion classroom, it will be the best place for all children regardless of their need, is group stereotyping at its worst. It denies the absolute right of special needs children to be placed other than in the full inclusion classroom, when their parents and qualified professionals view a different placement as one that best meets their interests. In Eldridge, a 1997 decision, Mr. Justice LaForest who gave the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that persons with disabilities have too long been subjected to insidious stereotyping.

For anyone to insist the inclusion classroom can be the best place for all children regardless of their needs is by its very nature stereotyping and discriminatory.

The CACL philosophy summarized in its recent "No Excuses "campaign is stereotyping and discriminatory. With the emphasis on "no excuses" it implies that concerned caring parents, and competent professionals, who seek education settings outside the full inclusion classroom for a special needs child are in some way morally deficient, making excuses instead of doing what is best for the child.

In New Brunswick the NBACL and other full inclusion for all advocates like Gordon Porter, the current chair of the NB Human Rights Commission, have insisted that their way is the only way. They have dominated NB education for more than a quarter century and they are celebrated around the world. What the world may not know is that our full inclusion model has in fact itself been discriminatory and harmful. In the past 10 years changes have begun to be made on the ground by activists parents of some special needs children, including some autistic children, by conscientious educators and by the undeniable evidence that education in the full inclusion classroom is NOT in the best interests of ALL special needs children.

Hopefully some day CACL, NBACL, and other promoters of the Full Inclusion for All model will come to their senses and cease trying to impose their deeply held beliefs over the evidence and over the best interests of special needs children.

Hopefully someday the CACL and NBACL will cease promoting discriminatory practices in education.

autism

Read more »

Autism Awareness, or Lack Thereof, on a Halifax Bus

An autistic boy, one of 15 autistic children taking part in a field trip, was recently removed from a Halifax bus following what the transit authority described as disruptive behavior, piercing screams by the boy. The Canadian Press reports a difference of opinion over whether the boy was ordered to get off the bus by the driver, as alleged by his father, or whether the boy and his counselor left the bus voluntarily, as alleged by the transit authority spokesperson. The transit authority maintains an investigation is still ongoing even though it has already concluded that the boy was not ordered off the bus.

I find it unlikely that the boy and his counselor simply got off the bus without being either directed to get off ..... or being pressured to get off. The transit spokesperson has stated that the bus driver did not order the boy off the bus:

"The spokeswoman said images recorded by a surveillance camera aboard the bus indicate the driver told a counsellor that he couldn't keep driving unless Izaak's "piercing" outbursts stopped.

The spokeswoman quoted the driver as saying, "I can't drive if that keeps up."

"He said he was concerned that he couldn't continue to drive the bus because it was distracting."

Patterson said the driver did not ask to have the boy removed, and it appeared Izaak and his counsellor left the bus voluntarily."

If you accept the transit authority's position then it still seems likely to me that the counselor would have interpreted the driver's statement as an indication that the boy would have to be removed from the bus since they might not have been able to guarantee he would not continue with the screaming. I do not believe they felt that the boy's continued presence was wanted on the bus.

I am the father of a 13 year old boy with Autistic Disorder. He loves going for drives, even long drives, and is generally quiet and well behaved. There are times though, including yesterday, when his behavior could be described as "distracting". Sometimes he does engage in piercing screams, although they usually subside. Sometimes he pulls my hair or tries to grab my arm. When he does these things he is seated directly behind me; in close proximity. He is closer to me, arms's reach, then a boy on a bus would be to the driver.

I don't have the luxury of refusing to drive my son. I have to focus on the road despite any "distracting" behavior he might engage in. I don't know if the driver in question knew he would be driving a group of autistic children or whether the transit authority knew. It seems that the driver in question, accepting the transit authority's position on what was said, is not familiar with autism disorders and should not be driving autistic children without further training.

Anyone driving autistic children should be prepared to drive with some "distraction". As the father of a 13 year old boy with Autistic Disorder I know this, from experience, to be true.

autism

Read more »

Autism Mother Marni Wachs Discusses Neurodiversity

Note: I received the following thoughtful comment on autism and neurodiversity from Marni Wachs, an autism mother, and, with her permission, I am posting it here as a "guest blogger" commentary.



Harold Doherty

Re: Jim Sinclair' s Work "DON'T MOURN FOR US: a message for parents of autistic children"


I admire and appreciate the important and necessary work of Jim Sinclair for both autism, and in general for people with disabilities. It is an extremely well-written and concise expression of rights of those with disabilities, the folly of many parents in missing the individual beauty and development of their own child in the constant misguided comparison with an incomparable standard, and the need for public accommodation and acceptance of autism as a different way of being. I myself have used that expression, "a different way of being"' in conversation, and it describes autism well, without defining it as less-than.

I do not, however, accept the entire message and implications of the neurodiversity perspective. I understand the need for a concise theory, but sometimes the neat and tidy package does not fit some of the intricacies of reality.

I do not accept a logic chain that precludes reasonable treatment efforts particularly early education / intervention from being defined as anything but unacceptance, of one’s child and autism in general. I fully love and accept my child, regardless of the abilities he has now or in the future. I don’t accept that it makes me a lesser parent in that I am sending the message that my son is “not good enough” or I don’t accept him as he is. I am a full parent to my children. The same parenting ideals hold for my daughter who is neuroytpical. I am parenting her, based on my love, her needs and what will help her to live a full and happy life. I have always worked hard as a parent to educate her. Does that then imply that I do not accept her? Of course not, it means that I want to educate, stimulate, give options for how to be in the world, teach skills to foster communication and connection with others, as much independence as possible by trying to be the best possible
parent.

If you logically extend Jim Sinclair’s argument, then no child is accepted if they are being educated. If we accepted children as they are, then we would not need to alter their natural state of being by educating them. Would the neurodiversity perspective have me feel guilty or wrong for parenting appropriately as per my definition of good parenting?

Sinclair’s stance works well for natural disabilities, but autism may not always necessarily be the natural sate of being for a particular individual. I do believe there may be some on the spectrum who have autism from a genetic basis, or that autism began before birth, which may indeed fall completely under the neurodiversity umbrella. However, the possibility of environmental triggers playing a role in autism exists, which would mean the possibility exists for reversal or treatment of same, as an unnatural state of being in certain cases. I love my son whether he was born with autism, developed it in utero, or was injured environmentally at some point which triggered or enhanced it. Just as parents whose children have cancer fully love and accept them, but still want to find a cure or treatment, as well as give them an enriching and happy life, how ever the condition progresses, so I want for my son. As for using cancer as a comparison, the comparison begins and ends with the way I have used it specifically in the above example.

I agree with Mr. Sinclair that rigid insistence that the child with autism communicate with neurotypical people in only a neurtotypical fashion is selfish and narrow-minded, as well and limiting to the parent-child relationship and the child’s development. I agree with the need for those with autism to have allowances, accommodations, ways and places to be in the world. Education of the public regarding the rights of those with autism is sorely needed.

I applaud the work and feel that the neurodiversity perspective is a necessary part of public education and awareness, but I wish the perspective did not require a scapegoat to secure the strength of its message. Parents benefit from such guidance to a point, but not the accompanying pressure and judgment.

Words cannot define the overwhelming love I feel for my son, and no “perspective” will tell me that I am not acting in his best interests, and that I as his parent, am in the appropriate position to do so.

Finally, I fully and unconditionally love and accept my son (and always will), and I want the very best education and treatment for him. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Marni Wachs
Winnipeg, Manitoba

autism

Read more »