State with the best or worst school system for autistic kid.

Post Reply New Topic

There are many conflicting rankings out there. Wondering what the Wrong Planet viewpoint is on this topic.

Thank

Some of this adding to what was said before by others. I've thought about this myself too. Generally, I think smaller classes for kids on the spectrum will work best. They really do need extra attention, and this can mean some combination of appreciating their gifts and also their deficits, and working with them to recognize their unique traits. In college I was able to do mostly alright with the bigger lecture-style classes, but college is of course set up way differently from K-12. I think if someone with autism (or more likely HFA) makes it to college, they have a decent chance of succeeding due to the rather simple and straightforward ways that classes are set up.

For K-12, I found that the larger classes just made me feel more insecure. I'd find one or two good friends I got along with and who made me laugh and often we would just goof off. I remember enjoying smaller classes because I felt closer to the other students and the teacher and like I wasn't being overlooked. I also generally did pretty well with 1 on 1 situations, unless the teacher and I didn't get along, in which case the results were bad. So 1 on 1 can work, but there are less other people to help you out, it's just you and the teacher, and if their style doesn't work, you'll struggle. I think that the best setup for me was when the teacher saw me as a smart and capable kid rather than a problematic one. If they saw me as a problem, then they didn't truly believe in me and I didn't bother trying to prove otherwise.

I have an IQ of 160 and I feel I was failed by the mainstream school system I was in. It wasn't necessarily that the work was too easy or too hard -- I don't think I could just be skipped ahead grades or put in a gifted school or something like that, I think it was more the style of learning that didn't match my thinking style. I'm just saying that I am plenty smart to have done well, so it wasn't for lack of intelligence if/when I struggled. I started out fine but by the time I reached middle school, I hated most of my classes. I slowly started losing my motivation to do the homework and stuff and had organizational problems. I nearly failed 7th grade and screwed around for most of 8th, and then in 9th and 10th I struggled to get above mediocre grades, and finally by 11th grade I was doing pretty well and on my way to a decent college.

I'm willing to admit some of this was made worse by family problems...but I think some of that can also be traced to not recognizing me on the spectrum. I suspect if autism was better understood when I was growing up, my parents would've known what to look out for and could've guided me better in the education system as well.

I have conflicting thoughts about this; I was self-contained in K and 1 (I took Summer School after K after missing 4 months because of hospitalization), and had special classes in 2, 3, 4 (I was self-contained for a month bridging my second and third grade years due to a car wreck that landed me in ICU for eight months, and hospital for ten months, causing me to miss the entire second half of second grade and almost all of the first half of the next school year). Yes, I repeated second grade for a month before moving on to third in the second semester), before becoming fully mainstreamed in fifth grade and above. I think it worked perfectly for me, as I could gain some traction before being thrown to the wolves. They tried to mainstream for math in K, but it lasted one week. I did go to special preschool when I wasn't in the hospital before I entered K.

On one hand, I believe that children on the spectrum need a safe space to learn with minimal distractions. School can be very overwhelming. My cousin was homeschooled until he was in High School, then tried to go to public, and it was too much. He went to a private high school wherein the student-teacher ratio was 10:1 and did much better. All three of my school-aged nephews are either homeschooled or go to private school. Children on the spectrum are fragile as they are, and it would be a mistake to break them before they reach adolescence. We experience memories in a very vivid way. Also, bullying is minimalized in smaller classroom settings (I was bullied very badly in school).

On the other hand, I also believe that children should also be exposed to some mainstream classes. I was placed in some "sink or swim" situations, and those taught me a lot, and I believe that those, combined with other situations has allowed me to interact with people fairly well. I do not believe that placing a child in the proverbial bubble is the right answer either. In Middle school, I struggled with switching classes, mainly due to poor time management, and I was constantly tardy. At the end of the day, you know your child better than everyone else, but I like to see people maximizing their talents. Of course, this is for High Functioning children.

I have no idea what my IQ is, nor do I care; at this point in my life, it does not matter. That said, I do feel that I was also failed by the system, and I felt like I was being held back. I was extremely bored in high school; I did not study at all, and it affected me in college (I did the six year plan). I was not prepared for the expectations of a college student, and how habits will determine your success in college as much as your intellectual capability.

I don't really believe in a set, strict IQ for any given person, as I have talked about in previous posts. But I do believe in estimates and correlations to some degree...and it has been the inference of others that my IQ must be "at least" 160 (4sd+), based on test performances. I suppose I would concur but ultimately I'm not attached to that one way or the other. As an adult I have been able to excel on numerical, spatial, and verbal tests, showing a high aptitude for pattern recognition, logic, and so on. To me the specifics of that are somewhat irrelevant, but what is maybe relevant is that at least others who get to know me will admit I am intelligent. I did succeed in higher education more than K-12, or maybe in spite of this struggling in some places of K-12. Thus there is incongruity between my underlying abilities and my performance in an academic setting during key, formative periods.

I can nevertheless identify for myself a low-recognition (or "problem period") approximately from age 8-15. During this period I think there was not much recognition of my intelligence by teachers. I think that basically many schools (at least in the US but probably other places as well) are just running a daycare program, where kids are kept socialized, busy, and out of trouble, and don't learn anything all that interesting or of much use...and much of it they won't remember. People are tracked by their grades only and not really appreciated for qualitative (rather than quantitive, i.e. measurable) abilities. I think there are some good things about such an environment, and some bad. At the very least, such a system is not well-designed to identify talents in individuals. It is overly prescriptive in many ways, so those who are original and creative and unusual -- those who do not rise to the status quo, will be misunderstood.

I think that at the very least, the most intelligent and precocious kids can be potentially failed by such a system, but the other students as well I imagine will be subject to these shortcomings. Education is a big responsibility. I think most schools aren't progressive enough. I really think that students should have more say over what they learn about, how they busy their minds and what they put their energies into. They should be allowed more independent study and there should be less authoritative teacher roles. Why are students forced to learn these almost arbitrary curricula? There is so much more out there that one can learn about. The standardized curriculum is very limited and biased. That being said, some do thrive in this environment.

As an adult I became very interested in numerical sequences - mainly solving them and eventually creating them. I have no math background past high school algebra (at one point I fell behind due to changing school curricula across the world, and based on a placement test upon returning, was put on a lower track than others, so I never really had the chance to learn trig or calculus), and I took a basic math class in college (applied mathematics) as part of a university requirement for quantitative reasoning classes.

Sometimes I do wonder what it would be like to teach a math class based entirely on sequences and how to break them apart...on all the different kinds of patterns one can find, and one can create using simple symbols such as numerals. Nevertheless I think there's some educational value there, potentially. Numbers are so incredibly fascinating, while at the same time being simple and complex. Such tasks amount to puzzles, games, and problems to be solved, and are maybe of a more recreational variety...but I digress a bit. Along these same lines...I wonder if many classes or "clubs" which are often considered "extra-curricular" in the common school system, which often get kids really excited and enthusiastic, could possibly be real classes entirely of themselves. An example might be Chess or Debate. Take chess seriously as an area of study, and you can get very deep into it, it's a huge discipline that can expand the mind and even become a career. Debate similarly can connect to broader, big picture studies like rhetoric, logic, philosophy, political science, etc.

Let kids pick and choose, I guess. Have some stuff required, but I think more should be offered that is interesting and independent. This way you don't need more teachers necessarily. You get kids doing something they're interested in and foster independence in them earlier on and don't send the message that they need to be "babysat" by the teachers.

Personally I think a younger me would do well in such an environment. Maybe this would involve working with a mentor to figure out some subjects the student is interested in learning (teaching themselves via research, intuition, exploration, experimentation, support from mentors, etc). Maybe you'd have a few mentors for different subjects. They would have to be very open-minded, supportive, and intelligent teachers who can help guide the student without relying on conventional methods. The actual class time the student can be supervising themselves. Maybe these would have to be smaller schools. You could potentially build a whole school system this way.

The large schools here in Iowa are pretty good, if you ask me.

Connecticut is pretty good ... once you convince the district that your kid belongs on a plan. School districts don't want to spend the money or manpower unless they have to, which is why there's a cottage industry of lawyers who specialize in suing districts that deny services to kids on the spectrum. But once the plan is in black and white and the district is obligated to follow it, they do a good job (of course, the cynic will say they're doing what they have to do to avoid getting sued).

Whatever you do, stay the hell away from Pennsylvania, the land of misspent taxes. From friends of mine that retired as teachers (and I haven’t spoken to them in YEARS), the legislature will mandate that the DOE force their mandates on the schools, but will not provide the funds to implement said mandates. Since the legislature is controlled by the Republican Party (and if you think the Democrats are any better, guess again!) the only thing teachers do nowadays is “teach to the test”, and learning be damned.