Response to Schoneberger (2006): “EIBT research after Lovaas (1987): A tale of two studies”.

As a parent of a child with autism and as an attorney who practices special education law, I was appalled to read the recent article in your journal written by Ted Schoneberger entitled "EIBT Research After Lovaas (1987): A Tale of Two Studies." It would take more time than either of us has for me to provide you with the complete history of services for children with autism in California. However, I would like to at least summarize some of the history so that you might have a glimmer of understanding of the potential negative affects such an article may have on severely disabled children throughout this state. My son is now 19 years old. When he was initially diagnosed with autism at the age of four, there were no services or programs specifically designed to meet his unique individual needs in any public education forum. As a result, I formed a parent group known as Central Valley Families for Early Autism Treatment ("FEAT") which had its origins in Sacramento and now has similar groups nationally. The purpose of this parent group was to provide advocacy on behalf of all children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. We met with staff from Valley Mountain Regional Center who convinced us to work collaboratively with our local school districts (as opposed to filing for litigation). As a result of 14 years of work by parents, regional center staff and school district personnel, Central Valley now has the most effective treatment programs for children with autism found anywhere in the state. I do not make this comment lightly. I have represented over 1,000 children with autism from San Diego to Alturas, California and have seen dozens and dozens of treatment programs in public schools, homes, and non-public schools. Moreover, I have attended thousands of IEP meetings for these children during the last 14 years and have worked collaboratively with school districts and service providers throughout the state. At the same time, I have continued to represent parents of children with autism in litigation against school districts and regional centers when they fail to provide appropriate services for these children. As a result of my professional work in this area and what I have witnessed firsthand, I would like to respond to some of the assertions about the study by Howard, Sparkman, Cohen, Green, and Stanislaw (2005) that were made by Mr. Schoneberger. With regard to the issue of randomization, one must logically take into consideration ethics versus pure research, while remaining cognizant of the requirements contained within both federal and state law. IFSP and IEP teams are mandated by law to provide services that will address the unique individual needs of each child. Parents are members of the IEP team. I have personally attended numerous IFSP/IEP meetings in the area in which the Howard et al. study was conducted, and each and every time, all three program options referenced in Mr. Schoneberger's article were discussed and offered to the parents. The final determination then lies with the parents as to what they believe will be the most effective program for their child and their family, because no program or services can be implemented without their consent. Given the fact that all three programs were offered, there is just as much likelihood that a child who ended up in Group 1 in the Howard et al. study could have ended up in Group 3. Mr. Schoneberger provided no evidence to support his contentions to the contrary. If one were to do true "randomized" placements without the input of parents, such placements would be made outside the law and thus would be at risk for significant litigation, despite whatever waivers might have been signed by parents. I am not a scientist nor a researcher, but then neither is Mr. Schoneberger. It is my understanding that the next best type of group research design is one in which the treatment and control groups are matched as closely as possible on variables that are likely to influence treatment outcomes, and where their initial similarity is shown empirically. …