Welcome back to Reading the Research, where I trawl the Internet to find noteworthy research on autism and related subjects, then discuss it in brief with bits from my own life, research, and observations.
Today's article is part of why it's never wise (and often cruel) to put children into boxes like "low functioning autism."
It's always an odd feeling to read obvious information being merely speculated at, or worse, puzzled over, in scientific research. This study done by the University of California showed changes in the "autism severity" as children aged from age 3 to age 6. Some improved, to the point of not even qualifying for an autism diagnosis anymore. Some struggled even harder as they aged. More than half stayed about the same.
The tone of the research seems politely puzzled about this fact. It isn't complicated. The fact is, as children age, their brains develop. Autistic people don't always develop at the same pace as our neurotypical counterparts. So the demands and skills required for, say, preschool or kindergarten might not have developed in us by the time we're old enough to be placed there. Which leads to concerns and diagnoses and extra help.
Given time, some children's brains develop and begin to catch up with the demands placed on them. Others may fall further behind, as the demands increase but their brains aren't given sufficient support and time to develop. This information is neither brain surgery nor rocket science. It's merely observation and firsthand/secondhand knowledge from other autistic people and parents.
I do think it's foolish to assume that just because a person no longer meets the criteria for ASD, that they're going to be perfectly neurotypical from now on. That's not how brains work, and it's especially not the lived experience of many girls on the autism spectrum. We don't become normal, we simply learn to appear normal. The differences remain, and the struggles continue. They're just not as obvious.
Finally, to the original point I raised. We are, none of us, bound to our fates. IQ is not an overall measure of success in life (or even overall intelligence), but merely a measure of how well a person will thrive in a typical school setting. Peoples' brains do develop and change. People continue to learn until they day they die. Nonspeaking autistic people communicate, they just don't do so in convenient words.
Putting someone in a box (or an institution) and saying, "oh well, they'll never develop past age 6 mentally and there's no point trying to communicate with them or help them learn," is to deny their basic humanity. Particularly at a young age, when brains are still in full swing of development, this is flatly wrong.
I'm not saying every autistic child can grow up to be fully verbal and successful in any school, and then whatever type of work they want. But I am saying that if you take someone's word that your loved one can't improve and learn, you're making it impossible for them to do so. I hope it goes without saying that you should never do that. Boxes are for moving objects, not for keeping people in.
(Pst! If you like seeing the latest autism-relevant research, visit my Twitter, which has links and brief comments on studies that were interesting, but didn't get a whole Reading the Research article about them.)
Today's article is part of why it's never wise (and often cruel) to put children into boxes like "low functioning autism."
It's always an odd feeling to read obvious information being merely speculated at, or worse, puzzled over, in scientific research. This study done by the University of California showed changes in the "autism severity" as children aged from age 3 to age 6. Some improved, to the point of not even qualifying for an autism diagnosis anymore. Some struggled even harder as they aged. More than half stayed about the same.
The tone of the research seems politely puzzled about this fact. It isn't complicated. The fact is, as children age, their brains develop. Autistic people don't always develop at the same pace as our neurotypical counterparts. So the demands and skills required for, say, preschool or kindergarten might not have developed in us by the time we're old enough to be placed there. Which leads to concerns and diagnoses and extra help.
Given time, some children's brains develop and begin to catch up with the demands placed on them. Others may fall further behind, as the demands increase but their brains aren't given sufficient support and time to develop. This information is neither brain surgery nor rocket science. It's merely observation and firsthand/secondhand knowledge from other autistic people and parents.
I do think it's foolish to assume that just because a person no longer meets the criteria for ASD, that they're going to be perfectly neurotypical from now on. That's not how brains work, and it's especially not the lived experience of many girls on the autism spectrum. We don't become normal, we simply learn to appear normal. The differences remain, and the struggles continue. They're just not as obvious.
Finally, to the original point I raised. We are, none of us, bound to our fates. IQ is not an overall measure of success in life (or even overall intelligence), but merely a measure of how well a person will thrive in a typical school setting. Peoples' brains do develop and change. People continue to learn until they day they die. Nonspeaking autistic people communicate, they just don't do so in convenient words.
Putting someone in a box (or an institution) and saying, "oh well, they'll never develop past age 6 mentally and there's no point trying to communicate with them or help them learn," is to deny their basic humanity. Particularly at a young age, when brains are still in full swing of development, this is flatly wrong.
I'm not saying every autistic child can grow up to be fully verbal and successful in any school, and then whatever type of work they want. But I am saying that if you take someone's word that your loved one can't improve and learn, you're making it impossible for them to do so. I hope it goes without saying that you should never do that. Boxes are for moving objects, not for keeping people in.
(Pst! If you like seeing the latest autism-relevant research, visit my Twitter, which has links and brief comments on studies that were interesting, but didn't get a whole Reading the Research article about them.)
No comments:
Post a Comment