To put the above post into context, TEACCH stands for Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children. It is a Public Health Program available in North Carolina, with the head office located in Chapel Hill, N.C…
…Why do we think TEACCH is a good model to follow
…As parents quite involved in the autistic society activities, we have explored hundreds of methods, going from “recipes” to full blown country wide systems…
…Here are the considerations that were decisive in our choice of TEACCH versus other approaches of autism:
Respect for autistic people difference, whatever the degree of severity of autism
Respect for parents and association of parents in the program as “Co-Therapists”.
Inclusion of parents opinions in decisions regarding younger children and more severely handicapped autistic adults.
Inclusion of autistic people advice to the maximum extent of their possibilities of communication.
Warmth of the professionals, mainly due to the next point
In depth knowledge of autism from all points of view: medical, psychological, educational, social mainstreaming, affective, and yet these professionals remain very humble.
Long experience with testable long term results (Thirty years). Education constituting the backbone of the approach.
Continuous evolution of the teaching techniques based upon University research programs, integrating most recent knowledge to a long experience.
Comprehensive program from early childhood to adult age, from diagnosis of very young children to adult evolution assessment, from low functioning to high functioning.
Transportability of the approach: it could be adapted without problem to the French environment (or any other country). The approach is flexible enough to be adaptable.
Last but not least, our overall impression that autistic people of all ages seemed happy and developing quite well towards a maximum of autonomy according to their individual capacity. This was from our own observation and from what parents told us…
Here is Gary Mesibov, director of Division TEACCH in North Carolina, talking about the differences between TEACCH and various Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) approaches…
…AF: Would it be too simplistic to say that the fundamental difference between TEAACH and ABA-Lovaas is that ABA is based on the principle that the child must overcome his autistic characteristics and adapt to the world around him, while TEACCH provides the child with an environment designed to accommodate the characteristics of an autistic child?
GM: Well, of course, the situation is more complex. There are two ways of looking at it. I think there are two important differences between the two approaches One is philosophical: ABA, Lovaas or discrete trial training works on the basis that, with some form of intensive, systematic teaching, you can acquire a “normal” or neurotypical model, I think the word “accommodating” for what TEACCH does might give the false impression that we don’t teach children with autism. Of course we do. Now, I myself am terrible spatially and I have the worst memory ever – and it’s getting worse as I get older! But these are things that children with autism are good at, so we try and enhance their strengths and develop around some of their interests, to try and help them function more comfortably. It’s not a question of accommodating. The difference is what we teach. ABA-Lovaas is teaching the more “normal” model of development and functioning, while we at TEACCH are trying to expand around the differences. Both are looking for development and progress, but the emphases are slightly different. The other big difference between us – and it’s not talked about as frequently as the philosophical difference – is that the major concept behind ABA and discrete trial training is that reinforcement is the main trigger for development and learning. They believe that, if something positive follows a behaviour which is very systematically and precisely taught, then that behaviour is going to increase. Whereas I think that the TEAACH comes more out of the Gestalt tradition, which focuses on meaningfulness and understanding. My argument is that, if a thing makes sense to someone, if they understand it, then it is going to promote their learning more effectively. It’s a real challenge for anyone – especially someone with autism. If you put me up against Dr Lovaas or any ABA person and said: "You have one chance to work with this child and whoever works most effectively wins the battle, " what they would try and in is the most powerful reinforcement, whereas I would try and get a concept to make sense to the child, to communicate understanding. This difference of technique is important .
AF: Do you find that some of the people who have shifted away from the original UCLA approach to Lovaas are moving closer to your approach? I am thinking specifically of Lynn and Robert Koegel, with their emphasis on motivation and pivotal response.
GM: Absolutely., I look at their pivotal response concept and I would probably interpret it in a different way – but I agree entirely that the notion of motivation brings in much more the person’s understanding and the personal connection to what you are teaching. Whereas in the ABA-Lovaas, discrete trial training approach, everyone learns the same thing. Lynn Koegel just did a study that I would have been very proud to have done in which she was trying to develop social interests and skills, around the interests of the children. This is a very strong TEACCH concept. Some of the ABA extensions – and the Koegels are a good example – are closer to what we do than to discrete trial training. They are also doing them in natural environments. ABA is a funny term. One day, I would like to figure out whether structured teaching or TEACCH is ABA! Some of the people doing ABA are working with priorities which are closer to what we are doing. They do it in a natural setting. They do not focus on language but on communication. Lynn Koegel was recently at one of our conferences, and she talked about initiating communication, which is the kind of problem which we worry much more about, because it is such a problem in autism. But I still think that the distinction is between reinforcement and meaningfulness. And yet – and I’ll let you into a secret here! – you can come into our programme and you’ll see people using reinforcements. After all, reinforcement works. We get paid to work, and if we don’t get paid, we don’t work as well. The world operates on that principle. We don’t deny that principle, And the ABA people are focusing more on interests and things that there are meaningful. But there is still a legitimate distinction between TEACCH and ABA-Lovaas. We would look first at meaningfulness, whereas they would look first at reinforcement …
(source: http://www.autism-resources.com/papers/TEACCHN.htm ; Interview with Professor Gary Mesibov )