California Senate Introduces Two Autism-Related Bills
My seven year old son has been in five different schools in his short lifetime. He was asked to leave one preschool program, but then did fine at another. He was expelled from a private Kindergarten. He "graduated" from a public Kindergarten class, but around this time last year, his teacher strongly recommended we find another school for him. We did (by moving in this horrific real estate market), and he is now in first grade in our "Dream District."
Our case is not unique. Many families must work hard to find the appropriate educational and social environment for their child. The school-hopping has taught me first-hand that the right environment can mean everything for a child. My son was essentially two different people at the two different kindergartens. And he has improved even more in his new school, surrounded by people who appreciate his strengths and assist him in areas such as social skills. When his teacher has questions about a particular behavior, we work together to find a way to address it in a productive way. I get happy butterflies when I step on campus because I feel that my son is in a supportive environment.
Imagine if suddenly we were told he could no longer attend the school that is serving him so well?
Unfortunately, many families must fight to remain in what they consider the appropriate placement for their child. This usually happens when the child ages out of the "early intervention" period. Young children are served by regional centers, but once the child "transitions" into the school district, the responsibility and funding comes from the school district rather than the regional center.
I've heard plenty of stories about kids who are doing well at a county-sponsored class and with in-home ABA therapy, but then as they "age-out" of the regional center, the school district refuses to pay for the county-class or the full recommended allotment of ABA. The school district goes through its own trial-and-error by putting the student in a special-day class at the local school, or even an inclusion class under the "least restrictive environment" philosophy. The student may do poorly in the inclusion setting, then do poorly in the special-day class. Finally, after enough "failure," the student might return to the environment in which he was growing: his original county-sponsored class. Or, he might never get back to the best place for him.
The student is given a negative message about his abilities and must adapt to change, which in itself is something kids on the spectrum struggle with immensely: a stable environment is a must for these kids. Meanwhile, the parents are fighting to retain ABA or other therapies. Instead of progressing, the child regresses.
Fortunately, SB1475 was just introduced this past week. From the text of the bill, it recognizes that "This transition [from regional centers to the school districts] currently presents a severe crisis to many families because it disrupts the continuity of programs and interventions that have already been implemented and are proving efficient in overcoming ASD and improving developmental outcomes."
The bill aims to create a collaboration between the regional centers and school districts to ease the impact of this transition. I would hope that this would increase the services still available to those post-transition rather than normalizing vendors in a way that would actually decrease services available.
This bill is hopefully a step in the right direction.
Another step in the right direction is SB1563. Also introduced last week, this bill addresses the discrepancies amongst insurance providers in their (non-)willingness to pay for therapies helpful for treating children with autistic spectrum disorders. I've had my fair share of experience in this arena. While some of these insurance companies will charge more to insure a child with autism, they will not provide actual services to that child, even denying services that "neurotypical" kids receive. We were told that my son couldn't see a counselor because "autistic kids can't be depressed," for example.
SB1563 reads in part:
I have dual-reactions to this:
First, Yes! I want coverage for kids with autistic spectrum disorders!
But then: Wait, what if this means that there will be a single state-mandated "treatment plan" from which physicians cannot deviate?
The word "illnesses" hits me the wrong way. I believe many kids diagnosed with spectrum disorders simply have processing differences. There are optimum ways of teaching and creating a successful environment for these kids, but this should be done on an individual basis. After all, if all kids learned the same way, we wouldn't have so much difficulty with the aforementioned transition between regional centers and school districts, nor would we have so much trouble catering to different interests and abilities in "neurotypical" kids. Education is a complex thing.
My hope is that kids with autistic spectrum disorders can be treated as unique people by their physicians rather than damaged property that must be shuttled off to the school district to be "dealt with." (And that has its own set of struggles with the famed "IEP.") If the child has difficulty with sensory integration, then allow occupational therapy. If the child has trouble with speech, then allow speech therapy. If the child is depressed, allow counseling. Sounds simple, doesn't it?
I hope that these two bills will provide progress towards allowing parents, teachers, physicians and therapists the ability to create and maintain programs that will create the right environment for each unique child whose circumstances have led to the "autistic spectrum disorder" label.
Recent Comments