AAC by 18 months

I have taken part in a lot of conversations about using AAC (in online forums, in real life, and via email) and one of the most popular reasons that I hear about waiting to try AAC with a child is age. Here are some samples:

"C is only 4, no one in the preschool knows anything about AAC so we're going to wait until she can be evaluated in kindergarten." 

"He just started kindergarten and the teachers are getting to know him. They plan to submit a request for an assistive tech eval at the end of the month." 

 "He's three and a half and I wonder if he might be able to use some AAC but the speech pathologist says that he's making steady progress so we should hold off until he's a little older." 

When people ask when we started using AAC with Maya, I'm as honest as I can be (because really, it's hard to remember). I know we were doing some picture card stuff (and signing) before we got an iPad. I know we got the iPad when she was 2.5 years old (only 5 or 6 months after its release, so we couldn't have moved much faster on that), and we started using a communication app immediately. Over the course of the following year (2.5-3.5 years old) we did a mish-mash of that app (which had turned out to be less than ideal), the Word Book, a trial of another device, and probably some things that I'm forgetting. Finally, at 3.5 years old, we found the Speak for Yourself app and ran (fast) with it. (This video shows our communication highlights from 2 yrs old to 5 years old. )

So, at 2.5 years old we were experimenting and practicing and encouraging and trying to figure out a system that could work . . . and at 3.5 years old we found the system that could work (and we literally couldn't have found it sooner---I think we downloaded the app only two weeks after it was put on the market). 

We should have started sooner.

I hate that we didn't start sooner. I'm not one to hold a grudge, but on this I do . . . one of Maya's therapists (we had a bunch of them) or doctors (boy, we had a bunch of them) should have told me, at her first birthday or shortly thereafter, when she clearly wasn't near ready to speak (no motor planning, minimal sounds, etc) "Hey there are some other ways of communication out there---some stuff with technology---and you might want to look into some of it. Or at least put it in the back of your mind."

Why didn't anyone tell us that we should have started so young? Well, for one, iPads didn't exist when Maya was 1, and maybe doctors weren't familiar with the stand-alone devices (many of which wouldn't have worked for a 1 year old anyway, with their non-toddler-friendly organization). The therapists should have known though---high tech or low tech or photo cards or something. Something.

Someone should have told us to start younger. Someone should have been aware of the communication options out there. Someone should have known that the research says to start young. Someone should have told us that there was a way that we could be providing our silent child with a voice, a way to tell us all of the things that she wanted to say.

And so here I am, years later. I am aware of the options out there, and I am aware of the research, and I am telling you to start young.

Start now. 

The title of the blog post came from the recommendation of a highly respected AAC expert, when she was asked about the appropriate age to introduce AAC to a young user. And that's not start around 18 months, that's you should really be on it by 18 months. 

Sound crazy? Think it's too young? Let me introduce you to Will.

Will is the (almost) 17 month old little brother of Maya (a 5 year old AAC user). He has been tangentially exposed to her talker since birth, although most of his hands-on interaction with it consists of "Hey! Will!! Do not take Maya's talker, it belongs to her!" and then I take it away, and then he cries. Yesterday morning, after several of these encounters in a row, I got our "play" iPad out and locked him into the communication app (using guided access). I configured the screen appropriately for a very young user, with mostly 1-hit core words (yes, no, mine, more, help, eat, drink, please) and one highly motivating category (family, which has pictures and names of many family members). After less than 3 minutes, he was using the app purposefully, and I grabbed my video camera and started recording.

(almost) 17 months old. (almost) 7 minutes. 

Is this typical? Who knows. (How could we define "typical" for an AAC user anyway, as that population is basically complex by definition). Will has the benefit of understanding (from birth) that this device is a voice, it's used to talk, etc, so we didn't have to help him connect those dots. Also, Maya's fine motor skills were no where near his at this age, so she would have been a much slower user . . . but how quickly would she have had the excitement of at least understanding the idea---that she can boss us around, say what she wants, ask for something that isn't close enough to point to? It's amazing!

In the next two videos, taken about 10 minutes after that first video, he is already moving past exploring the words and using a combination of AAC, word approximations, sounds, and gestures to tell me that he wants to call Grandma on the phone---something that he wouldn't have been able to communicate without AAC, as he doesn't have a vocal approximation for "Grandma" that I would understand. (He's starting to get it in the "part 2" video and really nails it in "part 3.")

He used the talker all day yesterday. When he woke up this morning, it was the first thing he was looking for---to tell us that he wanted to eat and then to have a drink, to ask again to call Grandma on the phone. He has a voice today that he didn't have yesterday, and he knows it. I think about the parents out there who have kids who are 3, 4, 5 years old . . . or 8, or 12, or 18. The parents who are waiting because they don't have anyone telling them to start young.

I'm telling you to start young.

This was my favorite video, which takes you through the complete learning of a new word. I hadn't used "drink" with him at all before the start of this video. We kept things light and fun and silly and boy, did he learn "drink" quickly :)  Enjoy the giggles.

If you are thinking "well, easy for you to say, he's a "typical" kid without delays" . . . well, you're right. But I was told that Maya's cognitive functioning was in the 0.4th percentile, and I believed that she could do it, too. You may have to model for a while before your child responds---but we speak to kids from the moment they are born and don't expect them to talk back for nearly a year. I modeled sign language to Maya for months before she signed back. This is even easier than that---you don't have to learn signs, you just tap a button now and again as you talk.

AAC by 18 months. If your child is older than 18 months, and you're wondering when to start, the answer is now. If your child is younger than 18 months, but old enough to know that you are dealing with a significant speech issue, and you're wondering when to start, the answer is now.

(And if now you're ready to start but don't know what to do next, check out this and also this.)

I Am Not A Mind Reader (And Neither Are You)

In discussing AAC (augmentative and alternative communication, in which a child uses something other than speech to aid their communication---signs, boards, picture cards, apps, devices) with parents, I am sometimes surprised by their lack of interest in using it at home with their children who have complex communication needs.  Obviously all parents want to communicate with their children, so their resistance often comes from a well-intentioned place . . . they feel like they understand their kids, and so inserting a device (which can feel cumbersome and disconnecting) isn’t necessary.  It might feel more personal to engage with a child directly, through their speech and gestures, and parents feel like they don’t need a device because they understand what their child is thinking.

It’s a (philosophically) dangerous assumption.  One that all parents make at some point, and all parents should abandon at some point.

Picture this:

 

(this picture is from the internet somewhere)

Maya, my 5 year old daughter who has severe speaking challenges, and I are playing outside after school. A yellow school bus drives by and she jumps up, points at the bus, looks from the bus to me and yells “Bus!” (She’s a big bus lover, and “bus” is a very clear word for her.) She has wide, excited eyes and a smile. I know she’s thinking Wow, I love that bus! and so I reply “Yes, a bus! I know you’re excited to see the bus!”

Except here’s the problem---I don’t actually know what she’s thinking. I get the gist (something enthusiastic about a bus) and I assume the details (I love that bus).  This is a big problem, a common trap that parents (and other adults) fall into with communicationally complicated children.  The I-know-what-she’s-thinking mindset solidifies slowly, out of necessity, and initially develops for all parents with their babies/toddlers.  When children start to communicate, they do it through whining, crying, pointing, crawling/walking to objects (often times dragging a parent behind them), making sounds, signing, etc. We caregivers become adept at interpreting this intent-filled mash-up. Eventually, speech comes and the child can more clearly express their thoughts . . . except when speech doesn’t come . . . and then parents get additional practice at translating sounds and approximations, or gestures, or even sometimes just a child’s eyegaze---a glance that lingers on a cabinet, then flicks to their parent’s eyes, then returns to the cabinet.

We predict what our children are “saying”, and, with the youngest of children, we probably get it right pretty often. (After all, if a toddler points to the cookie cabinet and says “ti-ti” they probably want to eat a cookie, not to discuss cookie theory or bake a batch of cookies or conduct a brand comparison or analyze cookie shapes. Probably.)

But as a child with limited speech gets older, a somewhat loaded situation develops when we continue to make assumptions about their speech.  If we assume that in a particular situation (eg. Maya sees a bus driving by) a certain sound/word/sign/gesture (“Bus!” said with excitement) always means more or less the same thing (I like the bus! I love buses!) then we begin to pigeonhole our child’s communication, and to (inadvertently, unintentionally) sell them short.  If my reply to Maya in the bus situation is always something along the lines of “You love buses!” or “I saw that bus!” then I am a) making a simplistic assumption about what she was thinking, and b) replying in a predictable, kind of boring way that doesn’t expose her to any new ideas.  Both of these points---the assumption about her thoughts and the reply that I chose---have unfortunate consequences.

First, the assumption of her thoughts stinks, because I am assuming that she is thinking more or less the simplest thing that I can glean from her communication (one word (bus) +  excitement = I like that bus).  Whether this is accurate or not, I am selling her short by not stretching my mind to allow for the fact that she could be trying to say other (more interesting, novel, creative) things about the bus.

Second, my reply stinks, because my low expectations of what she was trying to say have now lowered the quality of my response. What if she was trying to say “That bus is so yellow!” and I replied “Yes, you like buses.” Ugh. My intentions are nothing but good, but my underestimation of what she is attempting to say has now led to a low level, simple reply. Even if she was saying “I love buses!”, I could offer validation with “Wow, a bus! You love buses! That bus was bright yellow like the sun, and it had so many wheels! I wonder if we’ll see another bus today.” A response along those lines acknowledges her enthusiasm and then models other ways that we can communicate about buses, other things that we can think about when we see a bus.

The simple truth is that “Bus!” could mean a lot of things from a 5 year old. A lot of things. To name a few:

-that bus is yellow                        -that bus is big                             -that bus looks like my bus 

-that bus is not my school bus      -is that my school bus?                  -I like that bus

-I see a bus                                 -do you see that bus                      -I liked riding the bus to school today

-something happened to me when I was on the bus today         -I have a toy bus just like that one, 

-I want to play with my toy bus                                                       -I want to get on that bus               

-look at the wheels (or insert other part) on that bus 

-that looks like the bus from (insert book/movie/tv show)             . . . etc.

The only way to know what Maya wants to say about the bus is to provide her with a way (or multiple ways*) to say as many things as possible. This is why I can’t help but cringe when parents (or others) say “We don’t really need to use AAC (communication boards, PECs, devices, apps, whatever) at home because I know what he’s thinking” (or “I know what he’s trying to say”). Maybe you do, or maybe you get the main idea, or maybe you get it wrong but your kid doesn’t try to correct you (children with limited communication abilities typically become passive communicators). Or maybe your answer is distracting and “good enough” even if it isn’t correct (eg: If your child comes home from school, points to the cabinet, and says “cookie”---thinking about how the girl who sits next to him at school today had the exact cookies that are in that cabinet---and you assume he wants a cookie and give him some on a plate, what’s the obvious reply from your kid? To sit and eat the cookies. You then are positive that he was requesting a cookie and you fulfilled his request, and he is now eating cookies and has moved on from what he was thinking about before.).

Guessing/assuming/inferring what a child is trying to say is not a good long term solution. A vehicle needs to be provided that will allow them to say diverse, novel things in multiple environments. We (the adults) need to learn to ask “What about the __________?” and then wait.  And wait. And wait.  And then, if nothing comes, model different statements that would all be appropriate.  Here’s an example:

Maya: Bus!

Me: What about the bus?

Maya: (silence, watching the bus drive down the street)

Maya: (silence)

Maya: (silence, looking at me)

Me: What do you want to say about the bus?

(more waiting)

Me (speaking and tapping emphasized words on her talker): We could say that the bus was yellow and big, that it was going fast, that you like that bus!

This shows her that there are many things to say about buses, and that using the word “bus” isn’t enough to let me know what she’s thinking. She needs to say more, and I expect that she can do it (even if she can’t do it yet). It shows her other words that would be useful in another situation like this. And it lets me insert my guess of what she was thinking (“I like that bus”) but doesn’t limit her to just that one sentence. It opens both of our minds, a little bit.

 *We have tried many methods of communicating with Maya before settling in with her communication app, Speak for Yourself. Many of those methods are outlined here. This is definitely not a comprehensive list of AAC options, it's just the stuff that we've tried.

A Tale of Two Evaluations

As we trudge through the process of figuring out the best kindergarten fit for Maya, we are once again back in the world of evaluations and reports.  This is not a fun place to be, as any parent of a child with special needs can attest to.

First, I will concede that these reports are necessary.  It’s important to identify areas of strength and weakness, to determine whether a child qualifies for services, and which skills should be targeted in the future.  That all makes sense.  But then things start to break down.

Evaluations are often conducted by people who have never met Maya prior to said evaluation.  These well-meaning people tend to greet her enthusiastically, which makes her clam up and withdraw a bit, smiling shyly.  In turn, the evaluator lays it on a bit more thickly, lots of cheerfulness and toys laid out and “show me your talker!” and “maya-do-you-want-to-play-with-blocks-or-maybe-a-doll-or-maybe-this-school-bus-or-maybe-do-you-like-crayons-better-do-you-know-your-colors-maya-do-you-like-pink-do-you-want-this-pink-crayon-maya-maybe-can-you-say-crayon-with-your-talker-no?-yes?-well-maybe-you-can-say-pink-or-if-you-don’t-have-pink-you-could-say-red-I-guess-maya-do-you-know-how-to-turn-your-talker-on-is-it-with-this-button-here-hmm”.  And Maya just smiles.  Or maybe tries to hide her face with her coat. And maybe sits on the floor.  And maybe knocks over a toy or giggles and tries to swipe a crayon. 

If the adult is putting on a show, Maya is generally content to watch. 

I know this, but can’t get over the awkwardness of saying what I really think needs to be said . . . “Hi, I’m Dana.  If you want her to pay any attention to you, your best bet is to start talking to me and ignore her for a few minutes.”  (because then she’ll act like a typical preschooler . . . hey, what about me? Don’t you want to see my talker? Hey---is that a school bus?!?!  I want it!)

Typically, I sit back. It’s the scientist in me.  I don’t know what protocol evaluators are following and I don’t want to skew results.  I imagine that they, as professionals, have a big bag of figurative (and literal) tricks, and that they will present them in some sort of interventional and motivational hierarchy.  I imagine that they are masters of body language and social intelligence, and will push in and pull back until they have figured out how to dance with Maya through the evaluation.  I imagine that they are skilled experts. 

As it turns out, sometimes they are.  Sometimes they are decidedly not.

In the category of decidedly are not, let’s revisit Maya’s psychological evaluation from 2010.  This evaluation, required for determining whether she qualified for a therapeutic preschool, was also our first attempt at cognitive testing.  This evaluation, and the report that came as a result of it, had been so abysmal that I wrote a longer piece about it---here’s an excerpt, so that you can get a look inside the appointment:

I think back to the afternoon of Maya’s psych evaluation.  Oh wait, I mean the evening of the eval, as the psychologist arrived 45 minutes late, only getting down to business at 6:15, thirty short minutes before the girl’s bedtime.   I eyed her suspiciously, as she looked to be about sixteen and appeared to have never interacted with a young child.  She handed me a survey to complete and I sat off to the side, dutifully penciling in bubbles, as Maya laid face down on the floor and eyed the psychologist suspiciously through one eye. 

Maya!  Do you want to play with the DOLL?  Which toy is the DOLL, Maya?

(Maya made no motion.  I think she even willed herself not to blink.)

Here-can you see them, Maya?  She carefully moved her line up of toys closer, now an inch from her nose.  Which one is the DOLL?  Do you want to play with the pretty DOLL, Maya?!

Maya turned her head away, saw me sitting across the room and smiled at me.  I stifled a laugh.  I wouldn’t want to play with that crazy lady either, silly girl. 

And so it went for the next forty-five minutes.  Toys were presented and ignored.  Requests were made and ignored.  At some point it struck me that this woman might end up writing that Maya was catatonic unless I intervened, so I made her sit up and engaged her in some play with a few blocks.  See, she listens, I thought, you are just very boring and now it’s bedtime.  When she left I joked to Dave “Well, it shouldn’t be a problem getting into a specialized preschool.  That lady most likely thinks that Maya is a vegetable.”

But now, on paper, it didn’t seem funny anymore.  The typed words looked official, the opinion of a professional, and this professional said that Maya’s cognitive functioning was abysmal.  I skimmed her observations and then this gem jumped out at me: Alexandra was not able to stack blocks. 

Who the hell is Alexandra? 

You mean to tell me that the late, unengaging psychologist was also not yet proficient at copying & pasting?  Really, lady?  Your report is bringing me the news that my child is severely impaired, and you can’t even do a quick proofread?  I imagined her quickly printing off the report and running out to the bar with her young, unburdened friends.  I hated her.

Further on, she wrote that Maya’s “expressive language skills were slightly stronger than her receptive language”.  Translated, this meant that she could speak more words than she understood.   Since she could only say one word (bye!), this meant that the psychologist assessed her to understand zero words.  Zero.  How would she explain what I saw as I peeked into the living room, where her OT was saying “Maya, pick up the yellow duck and put it in the box”   . . . and Maya did, of course. 

That psychologist didn’t know Maya.  Not at all.

That psychologist was not a skilled professional (professional, yes, skilled . . . eh).  She did not have a big bag of tricks, figuratively or literally or even imaginarily.  And lest you think that I am unfairly bashing the therapist, let me say this: I know Maya can be a challenge, a little puzzle.  But she was 2.5, and toddlers are tricky---she should have been prepared to coax her out of her shell.  And if she couldn’t---no worries! I was sitting right there, and would have happily, accurately, unbiased-ly answered questions about what she could and could not do. But she didn’t ask.  And so I fault her, fair and square.

The report from this evaluation contained one sentence that gave me pause:  Maya’s cognitive functioning is in the Extremely Low Range as compared to her same age peers.  This score is in the 0.4th percentile, meaning that she performed as well as or better than 0.4% of children her age.

Given the inaccuracy of the observations about her receptive language, I should have dismissed it outright.  And eventually, I did, but for the first hour or so after I read it, it stung.   And I doubted Maya, and I doubted myself, and I wondered if this lady could have seen something that I haven’t been seeing.  And then I shook it off, but a little dark shadow lingered . . . because no matter how sure of yourself and your child you are, when you see terrible things written about them on official letterhead from an official professional a dark shadow of doubt lingers, at least temporarily.

And that brings us to December 2012.  Two years later.  A new evaluation team (2 people instead of one), a new psychological evaluation (this time for kindergarten), a new report.  This time, with truly skilled professionals---two women who were ready for a challenge, who sat on the floor when Maya sat on the floor, and climbed up to the table when Maya wiggled into a chair.  Women who turned to me when Maya was shy, giving her a break.  When they weren’t getting far they asked me what I thought might work, welcoming my input and encouraging me to pull things out of my own perpetually stocked bag of tricks . . . m&ms and stickers and a juice box, oh my!  And Maya worked for them, answering questions and taking breaks and playing games, and 90 minutes later we had more accurate data than anyone had ever collected about Maya, ever.

I waited anxiously for the report.  Weeks went by.  I was nervous, and mad at myself for being nervous.  My hopes were up and I hate getting my hopes up.  I have a file full of reports that have taught me that they will not be accurate (in my opinion) and I will be agitated by the results.  And I’ll end up with lingering shadows that take weeks to clear away.

The report arrived, via email.  I saw it on my phone.  We did dinner and bedtime and I sat at my computer to open the file and read it, 10 pages of details and data and recommendations.  I skimmed it first, to see if it was worth reading, and then went back to read it carefully.  And finally, someone got it right.

I don’t generally talk about the numerical details of Maya’s reports, because –quite frankly- they are nobody’s business but our own.  However, I share the details below to boost the confidence of others who are receiving reports during this evaluation season and deflating.   I deflated a little when I got the 2010 report, even though I was pretty sure it was inaccurate.  The numbers made me scared and sad for Maya: 0.4^th percentile, 1^st percentile, 0.3^rd percentile.  These are not good numbers. 

The new report has better numbers, but it has bad numbers too.  The bad numbers roll off my back now, as we’ve seen them before. The good numbers, though, those are new . . . and even more important than the numbers are the qualitative observations that are embedded throughout the report.

75th percentile:  Her receptive language is “high average” among her same-aged peers. (yes)

50th percentile:  Her academic readiness is “average” among her same-aged peers. (yes)

While certain tasks were attempted, it is felt that scores are likely an underestimation of her capabilities and potential. (yes)

Her performance on the current evaluation should be considered as a baseline of her functioning at this point in time, but should not be used as a long-term prognostic indicator. (yes)

It’s been almost 4 years since we entered the special needs world, creeping nervously into Early Intervention.  I was scared in the beginning, and worried too much about assessments and milestones and where we were and the future.  As time passed, I understood Maya more and more, and I saw her strengths and her cleverness and I believed in her, so much so that I knew the reports were not gospel .  I’ve listened to many scared moms tearfully speak about bad reports and I want to tell them---don’t worry, your child is the same child that they were before you opened that envelope.  That report might not be accurate.  Keep the faith. 

Until now, I had no data to back up my “keep the faith, ignore the reports” general stance . . . I could have just been a biased, delusional mom.  But now I have a report that confirms that the other reports were clearly inaccurate.  I have a report that says that she is smart and she understands, as much as an “average” kid her age does.  I have a report that says that I was right to trust my gut.  And with this report in my corner, I’ll say now what I wish someone could have said to me back in 2010:

The truth of the matter is that reports are just opinions on letterhead. Some reports are informed, thorough, intelligent, professional opinions on letterhead, that should be valued and reflected upon and future decisions should take their findings into account.  Some reports are mis-informed, inaccurate, not-correctly-spell-checked, best-used-for-sticking-in-a-file-and-forgetting-about opinions on letterhead. 

Reports are a means to an end.  You need them to get services,  and you should read them to get details that you might need to use to fight for services, but read it as if it’s written about a stranger. Don’t take it personally.  Bad things in reports are actually good, as they’ll help you to get additionally therapies/interventions/support for your child. Note any weaknesses that you actually agree with, so that you can target them with your child in the future.  After you highlight what you need, file it and forget about it.  Your child is the same person as they were before you opened the envelope.  You know your child better than the evaluator.  This evaluation does not have any power to predict your child’s future . . . and it shouldn’t have any power over you. 

Breathe.  Cry about it or laugh about it or do both.  If it helps, make a photocopy and shred it up, or burn it.  Then do something special for yourself (because if you have to read these reports, you deserve something special for yourself).  Then, move on.  And keep the faith.  

 

 

I'm exhausted, the universe is out to get me, and it may all be worth it, anyway

This week is just a little crazy. 

• Mon: I had a job interview
• Tues-Maya had a doctor's appointment in the morning. I had a support group meeting in the evening. 
• Weds--I met at school with Maya's teacher, then took her to feeding therapy. 
• Today-I worked at a consulting gig. 
• Tomorrow-Maya has an assistive technology evaluation at school (I'll be going, too) -This happened much faster than expected, and I had an emergency phone consultation with an awesome AT guy last night to help me prep for the meeting. 
• Saturday-I'm working at a different job
• Sunday-Frantically clean up the house before Monday
• Monday-A reporter (&camera man-shudder) are coming to meet with us about a possible story

Each of the 2 jobs required prep work and the trading of dozens of emails, as did the AT evaluation tomorrow.  Add to this the continued communication book making, iPad screen developing, writing, and general life responsibilities, and I am frazzled.  Maybe beyond frazzled, actually.  I'm kind of catatonic.  In the mornings, I am focused and multitasking.  When Maya comes home, I am animated and doting.  Once she's in bed, my eyes glaze over as I work on the computer, answer emails, etc.  I'm staying up too late, I'm getting up too early, and I'm willing myself to just make it through to next Tuesday. 

As is typically the case when too much is on my plate, I'm rushing and cutting corners, which inevitably makes more work for myself.  I entered my online banking code incorrectly 3 times today, got locked out of the account, and had to spend 20 minutes on the phone convincing them that I really am myself.  I'm wiped out.

Now that you understand my mental state, you'll see the humor in this story.

The job that I helped with today was grading standardized-style tests.  Last week I did some work from home to help develop rubrics for part of the test, and it was really enjoyable to work on something that was not special-needs related.  Suddenly I remembered that I used to have a career in academics, and I used to enjoy it.  I was really looking forward to sitting in a room full of adults today, coffee cup on my desk, #2 pencil in hand, and grading whatever chunk of the test I was assigned.

I opened the book to my section of the test and started grading my 3 short answer questions.  My brow furrowed as I skimmed the first answer, and I flipped back to take a look at the passage . . .

 . . . which was all about a boy who wished he could play in the NBA, but he couldn't, because he was in a wheelchair.

Seriously?

Seriously.

Screw you, universe.  All I wanted was a few hours off.  Just a little mental break. 

The last question asked "Why was Justin sad when he went to the NBA game?" and I had to read over 300 answers of "He knew he could never fulfill his dream of playing in the NBA because of his disability."

(sigh)

On a happier note, Maya went on her first class trip today!  Her class went to the zoo (which she loves).  Last night I made her a zoo communication board that she could bring with her today (just one laminated sheet because I knew the book would be too heavy to bring).  Her (fabulous) teacher emailed the parents some pictures, and my eyes teared up when I saw this one:

She used the board, and the teacher said she loved it.  She got to talk at the zoo.  And after she came home, she kept telling us "zoo! zoo!" (by pointing) and showing us all of the animals that she saw.  (If you ask her if she saw the penguins, she smiles and holds her nose---that penguin house is so stinky!)

 it's blurry because it's heavily cropped

This was cropped out of the group photo of all of the kids + all of their partners for the day.  Look at her clutching her words.  She's really getting attached to the word book, she knows it's how she can make herself heard.

Totally makes the late nights working on that stuff worth it, I think.

Listen up!

Before this afternoon, Maya's spontaneous vocabulary was only 1 word:  Bye.  She loves bye and bye-bye and will shout them any time someone appears to be leaving anywhere.  People stand up at the dog run? "Bye-bye!"  We pass by someone in the hallway? "Bye!"  We leave the apartment? "Bye-bye.  A-bye.  Bye!"

(She can also say "mama" and "dada" but those are generally prompted.  And  "Mmmmm" can mean: milk, Maisy, Maisy video, moon, more, cow or moo.  "Hhhh" ("ha", but the a is silent) means "help".  These sounds are word precursors, but not true words, you know?  Like, we understand them, but not other folks.)

But this afternoon, with her fabulous speech therapist (who I know is probably reading this!) Maya latched on to another word. 

And it's soooooooooooooo cute.



Did you hear that sweet little voice?  Saying a real word?  It's like a drop of rain to a man in the desert . . . on one hand, I wanted to jump out of my skin with excited, grateful celebration  . . . and then, so quickly, a thirsty voice in my head says "More, more, give me more, talk more." 

It will come. 

PS.  How cute is it that "done" appears to be a full body effort?  Adorable.

PPS.  Her first two clear words are "bye-bye" and "done".  We've got a strong willed little girl on our hands :)


(Hearing update:  We've got nothing.  More tests today solidified what we already know---when she uses both ears, in a quiet room, her hearing seems to be normal.  We need more detailed data, but it's difficult to tease out of her, as some of the tests are too sophisticated just yet.  We'll return at the end of the summer, and will be teaching her a new way to take a certain behavioral test between now and then.)

Show and tell

Maya wants to show you . . . . . . .that she is not to be underestimated :)

She was eating a waffle and looking at a zoo book.  I randomly started asking her to point to animals and was floored to see how many she knows.  When did she learn these things?




Ironically, her psych evaluation says that her receptive language---words she understands---  is actually less than her expressive language---words she can say.  She can only kind of say 1 word (bye bye- "ba ba") . . . so we can infer what they're implying about her receptive abilities.  Take that, psychologist-who-was-late-and-not-engaging-at-all.  (Oh, and her special instructor knows all of the names of the Little People---the only one that I know is Maggie)

Parker wants to show you . . . his new shoes.

(How embarrassing)

They're for function, not fashion. He was so psyched to have his stitches out (post-neuter) and be free to run, but quickly cut open 2 of his paw pads on ice :( So now he has rubber booties to protect his feet.

And, just for fun, here's some video of Parker running at the dog park this morning :)
(If you watch closely, at 0:05 and 0:21 you can see my boot pop into the screen as I kick the ball. I am a master high-kicker.)



(As always, if you don't see the videos, just click the play buttons and they will appear)