The school systems in the San Francisco Bay Area lack a coherent approach to teaching children with autism according to Nanette Asimov, the education reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, she defines the problem in terms of the following:
"For years, the high cost of
special education has forced districts to skim off money from their
regular education budgets. But today, regular education is a virtual
ATM card for special education.
***One reason for the indecision is
that autism shows up differently in different people: Some can speak;
some can’t. Some are bright; some aren’t. Some behave unpredictably;
others behave with robotic consistency."
She seems to define a "coherent approach" as being on unified method that works for all students and lacking that uniformity the system is failing and will fail students. Among her other premises is that the system is suddenly being overwhelmed with students and that is the primary cause of issues in teaching children with autism. Her analysis misses the point.
I find it hightly objectionable that this article pits the regular
education students (and in turn their tax-paying/voting parents)
against the minority of children who have autism. According to this
article, the one system is draining the other system, e.g. a virtual ATM
card. Even the language itself is divisive, as there is only one "system." If her purpose is to drive a wedge between parents of children with
special needs and general education parents (who often are one and the
same) she has made an excellent start. These issues do not lend
themselves to cliche metaphors or pat answers. We need a cohesive community
approach to meeting the needs of all students, not an us against you
approach.
Moreover, even after covering these issues for some time, she does
not seem to understand the system at all. The problem is not that all
children with autism are different; those differences are assumed in the system and are meant to be addressed at IEP meetings. IDEIA mandates "individualized"
plans to address just those differences among students. Her so called
"coherent approach" would be a one size fits all or most, and until such
time as that approach can be found children with autism will be out of luck. Again,
this coherence would not be consistent with the law and would not serve
the needs of most students. The issue is not "coherence" it is lack of
thoughtful educational leadership and in turn insightful journalism.
She even describes children with autism as "enigmatic." As if to say that schools have no idea how to teach children with autism, and sound methods remain a riddle or a mystery to educators.
There are many well-researched and well-known approaches to
working with children with autism. The fact that San Francisco
apparently does not use all or some of these approaches is the real story,
that is not captured in this article. The means of teaching children
with autism have been known and written about since before there even
was an IDEA or its predecessor the EHA, more than 30 years ago. Yet in
2008, we are still looking for a coherent approach in a major city in
the U.S. is just astounding! It is the reality of life that I face
every day.
The influx of children with autism is not unique to California and
is well known. The numbers did not increase over night. We can not apply
a Hurricane Katrina-style analysis that it happened so quickly, so how
could we have responded differently or more effectively. I have seen some (albeit not many)
small districts in this area that actually have created quite
appropriate autism programs with the hours, intensity, services,
training and fidelity to research-based methods that produce good
results without going bankrupt. Is there a need for more dollars, of course,
but even greater is the need to stop doing the same old thing year
after year and belly aching when the district gets sued for denying FAPE.
All parents should as a community demand more from our public
officials. They should also expect more than this half baked journalism
that relies on cliches instead of real thoughtful analysis to serious
problems facing parents of children with autism and other disabilities.