I'm a special ed teacher who has provided EI services in Arlington. The county doesn't hand out free services to kids who don't need them. If a pediatrician and a professional's assessment suggest your child needs services, it's almost neglectful to refuse to treat your child. If I were you I'd investigate my inner desire to go against the recommendations of professionals. Especially since it's free.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wondering if it's necessary and if it really helps?

Research shows it does. But here's the thing. You will never know because your child is an individual and you can only make one choice - either you do it or you don't. So if you do, you won't know if she would have progressed anyway and if you don't and she doesn't progress, you don't know that EI would have worked. When it was me, I figured I could better live with trying it than with not doing something and later regretting it if my child's delays didn't improve. To me, this is the real question: what can you live with.

I am not against early intervention, but I don't think there is a lot of research showing that it works for otherwise NT infants who have delays like OP describes. If you can point me to specific research would be interested! EI is an entitlement system - so while OP's child may qualify based on their testing, that does not mean that the therapies are proven.

Yes but right now there's no way of knowing if OP's baby is NT or not. She could be, in which case these things would resolve. She might not be, in which case they won't, or will only very slowly, without interventions that may be necessary throughout childhood. The thing is, you don't have a control kid. There's no way to know when your child exhibits delays whether they will resolve on their own without interventions or whether the delays are caused by something more pervasive. Personally, I would err on the side of caution. If she catches up and is dismissed and never has any other issues, great. But you can't count on the fact that's what's going to be the case. Kids have special needs and learning disabilities and some of those require ongoing interventions. You don't want to be the parent who forgoes EI only to realize at 5-6 that you wasted tons of time not using them when they were needed.

they could design studies that look at the trajectory of babies with "delays" and outcomed based o

n early intervention. EI is not free (either parents or taxpayers are paying) and it is frustrating not to have better answers.

Ok but a thorough study would require that they had a control set of babies with known delays who do not receive EI to compare how poorly they fare compared to the kids with delays who do get EI. Surely you see how that's problematic.

They could do a study without controls, same way they do studies on interventions in other areas.

They do those. People deem them inconclusive for that reason though.

I haven't seen any studies at all on infants with no risk factors - if you have I would be interested! What is the point of saying "early intervention works" followed by "there can never be research or evidence on it" ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wondering if it's necessary and if it really helps?

Research shows it does. But here's the thing. You will never know because your child is an individual and you can only make one choice - either you do it or you don't. So if you do, you won't know if she would have progressed anyway and if you don't and she doesn't progress, you don't know that EI would have worked. When it was me, I figured I could better live with trying it than with not doing something and later regretting it if my child's delays didn't improve. To me, this is the real question: what can you live with.

I am not against early intervention, but I don't think there is a lot of research showing that it works for otherwise NT infants who have delays like OP describes. If you can point me to specific research would be interested! EI is an entitlement system - so while OP's child may qualify based on their testing, that does not mean that the therapies are proven.

Yes but right now there's no way of knowing if OP's baby is NT or not. She could be, in which case these things would resolve. She might not be, in which case they won't, or will only very slowly, without interventions that may be necessary throughout childhood. The thing is, you don't have a control kid. There's no way to know when your child exhibits delays whether they will resolve on their own without interventions or whether the delays are caused by something more pervasive. Personally, I would err on the side of caution. If she catches up and is dismissed and never has any other issues, great. But you can't count on the fact that's what's going to be the case. Kids have special needs and learning disabilities and some of those require ongoing interventions. You don't want to be the parent who forgoes EI only to realize at 5-6 that you wasted tons of time not using them when they were needed.

they could design studies that look at the trajectory of babies with "delays" and outcomed based o

n early intervention. EI is not free (either parents or taxpayers are paying) and it is frustrating not to have better answers.

Ok but a thorough study would require that they had a control set of babies with known delays who do not receive EI to compare how poorly they fare compared to the kids with delays who do get EI. Surely you see how that's problematic.

They could do a study without controls, same way they do studies on interventions in other areas.

They do those. People deem them inconclusive for that reason though.

Anonymous wrote:PP again - most parents who refuse suggestions of therapies/evaluations/diagnoses are in denial that their children have problems, because deep down, they view the child as an extension of themselves and are profoundly hurt that "they" are less than flawless.

Don't be that parent. You are hurting your child.

Oh geez. So untrue. As a parent you decide on how to marshall resources for your child, because they are not limitless. Plus, throwing everything at once at your kid is not necessarily the most effective route. Here we have OP who was referred for one thing (crawling) and got a finding of something totally different ("activities of daily living" for a baby). She's right to be trying to figure out the implications of all of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wondering if it's necessary and if it really helps?

Research shows it does. But here's the thing. You will never know because your child is an individual and you can only make one choice - either you do it or you don't. So if you do, you won't know if she would have progressed anyway and if you don't and she doesn't progress, you don't know that EI would have worked. When it was me, I figured I could better live with trying it than with not doing something and later regretting it if my child's delays didn't improve. To me, this is the real question: what can you live with.

I am not against early intervention, but I don't think there is a lot of research showing that it works for otherwise NT infants who have delays like OP describes. If you can point me to specific research would be interested! EI is an entitlement system - so while OP's child may qualify based on their testing, that does not mean that the therapies are proven.

Yes but right now there's no way of knowing if OP's baby is NT or not. She could be, in which case these things would resolve. She might not be, in which case they won't, or will only very slowly, without interventions that may be necessary throughout childhood. The thing is, you don't have a control kid. There's no way to know when your child exhibits delays whether they will resolve on their own without interventions or whether the delays are caused by something more pervasive. Personally, I would err on the side of caution. If she catches up and is dismissed and never has any other issues, great. But you can't count on the fact that's what's going to be the case. Kids have special needs and learning disabilities and some of those require ongoing interventions. You don't want to be the parent who forgoes EI only to realize at 5-6 that you wasted tons of time not using them when they were needed.

they could design studies that look at the trajectory of babies with "delays" and outcomed based o

n early intervention. EI is not free (either parents or taxpayers are paying) and it is frustrating not to have better answers.

Ok but a thorough study would require that they had a control set of babies with known delays who do not receive EI to compare how poorly they fare compared to the kids with delays who do get EI. Surely you see how that's problematic.

They could do a study without controls, same way they do studies on interventions in other areas.

Anonymous wrote:
Here's my two cents as a parent of a child who benefited from EI.

EI only takes children who are significantly delayed. There are plenty of cases where the kid is delayed... but not delayed enough to warrant free services.
Private therapies cost at least $100 an hour. My child needed 4 types of therapies once a week, and actually would have needed speech twice a week. I'll leave you to calculate the expense had this been done privately.

You would be monumentally stupid to not take advantage of this. Early intervention has been shown to work. And if you think it's too much (which it's not, see above about children being denied services), EI has never hurt anyone!

Please post on the special needs forum - the parents there are specialists.

I am a SN parent who has urged op to do these services and I agree. In fact, if a parent is told their child needs and qualifies for these services and doesn't pursue them, I consider that borderline negligence. There's no benefit to playing roulette with your kid's development. For my child, speech delays were the tip of the iceberg and only when we got servives for that did we realize there was more going on. At 7 she has been diagnosed with developmental coordination delay and a language processing disorder. She struggles with fine motor stuff and detecting stuff like tone or decoding messages in speech. She is bright and typical in many ways but without interventions she would not be where she is today. I have seen the difference those have made for her and they will be necessary for most if not all of her school career to help her be successful. Had I just written it off as "late talking" who knows where she would be today.

PP again - most parents who refuse suggestions of therapies/evaluations/diagnoses are in denial that their children have problems, because deep down, they view the child as an extension of themselves and are profoundly hurt that "they" are less than flawless.

Don't be that parent. You are hurting your child.

Here's my two cents as a parent of a child who benefited from EI.

EI only takes children who are significantly delayed. There are plenty of cases where the kid is delayed... but not delayed enough to warrant free services.
Private therapies cost at least $100 an hour. My child needed 4 types of therapies once a week, and actually would have needed speech twice a week. I'll leave you to calculate the expense had this been done privately.

You would be monumentally stupid to not take advantage of this. Early intervention has been shown to work. And if you think it's too much (which it's not, see above about children being denied services), EI has never hurt anyone!

Please post on the special needs forum - the parents there are specialists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wondering if it's necessary and if it really helps?

Research shows it does. But here's the thing. You will never know because your child is an individual and you can only make one choice - either you do it or you don't. So if you do, you won't know if she would have progressed anyway and if you don't and she doesn't progress, you don't know that EI would have worked. When it was me, I figured I could better live with trying it than with not doing something and later regretting it if my child's delays didn't improve. To me, this is the real question: what can you live with.

I am not against early intervention, but I don't think there is a lot of research showing that it works for otherwise NT infants who have delays like OP describes. If you can point me to specific research would be interested! EI is an entitlement system - so while OP's child may qualify based on their testing, that does not mean that the therapies are proven.

Yes but right now there's no way of knowing if OP's baby is NT or not. She could be, in which case these things would resolve. She might not be, in which case they won't, or will only very slowly, without interventions that may be necessary throughout childhood. The thing is, you don't have a control kid. There's no way to know when your child exhibits delays whether they will resolve on their own without interventions or whether the delays are caused by something more pervasive. Personally, I would err on the side of caution. If she catches up and is dismissed and never has any other issues, great. But you can't count on the fact that's what's going to be the case. Kids have special needs and learning disabilities and some of those require ongoing interventions. You don't want to be the parent who forgoes EI only to realize at 5-6 that you wasted tons of time not using them when they were needed.

they could design studies that look at the trajectory of babies with "delays" and outcomed based o

n early intervention. EI is not free (either parents or taxpayers are paying) and it is frustrating not to have better answers.

Ok but a thorough study would require that they had a control set of babies with known delays who do not receive EI to compare how poorly they fare compared to the kids with delays who do get EI. Surely you see how that's problematic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would definitely do it for all reasons stated above. My son had speech therapy through our version of EI (also free, aka included in our tax bill) for close to two years and and has been fine since discharged at 4. My son thought the speech therapist was a grown up play date for him plus i learned a lot of strategies. Honestly, I think he probably would have been fine but it could have taken longer. Why wait if you don't need to?

I don't understand why you think he eventually would have been fine if he needed 2 years of speech to get caught up. Speech issues don't just spontaneously resolve when the kid is 8 or whatever.

i think this because he is otherwise typically developing. I think he started slowly but would have caught up. But you are right, who knows what would have happened if we didn't go, which is why I recommended OP use the services her taxes pay for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wondering if it's necessary and if it really helps?

Research shows it does. But here's the thing. You will never know because your child is an individual and you can only make one choice - either you do it or you don't. So if you do, you won't know if she would have progressed anyway and if you don't and she doesn't progress, you don't know that EI would have worked. When it was me, I figured I could better live with trying it than with not doing something and later regretting it if my child's delays didn't improve. To me, this is the real question: what can you live with.

I am not against early intervention, but I don't think there is a lot of research showing that it works for otherwise NT infants who have delays like OP describes. If you can point me to specific research would be interested! EI is an entitlement system - so while OP's child may qualify based on their testing, that does not mean that the therapies are proven.

Yes but right now there's no way of knowing if OP's baby is NT or not. She could be, in which case these things would resolve. She might not be, in which case they won't, or will only very slowly, without interventions that may be necessary throughout childhood. The thing is, you don't have a control kid. There's no way to know when your child exhibits delays whether they will resolve on their own without interventions or whether the delays are caused by something more pervasive. Personally, I would err on the side of caution. If she catches up and is dismissed and never has any other issues, great. But you can't count on the fact that's what's going to be the case. Kids have special needs and learning disabilities and some of those require ongoing interventions. You don't want to be the parent who forgoes EI only to realize at 5-6 that you wasted tons of time not using them when they were needed.

they could design studies that look at the trajectory of babies with "delays" and outcomed based on early intervention. EI is not free (either parents or taxpayers are paying) and it is frustrating not to have better answers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wondering if it's necessary and if it really helps?

Research shows it does. But here's the thing. You will never know because your child is an individual and you can only make one choice - either you do it or you don't. So if you do, you won't know if she would have progressed anyway and if you don't and she doesn't progress, you don't know that EI would have worked. When it was me, I figured I could better live with trying it than with not doing something and later regretting it if my child's delays didn't improve. To me, this is the real question: what can you live with.

I am not against early intervention, but I don't think there is a lot of research showing that it works for otherwise NT infants who have delays like OP describes. If you can point me to specific research would be interested! EI is an entitlement system - so while OP's child may qualify based on their testing, that does not mean that the therapies are proven.

Yes but right now there's no way of knowing if OP's baby is NT or not. She could be, in which case these things would resolve. She might not be, in which case they won't, or will only very slowly, without interventions that may be necessary throughout childhood. The thing is, you don't have a control kid. There's no way to know when your child exhibits delays whether they will resolve on their own without interventions or whether the delays are caused by something more pervasive. Personally, I would err on the side of caution. If she catches up and is dismissed and never has any other issues, great. But you can't count on the fact that's what's going to be the case. Kids have special needs and learning disabilities and some of those require ongoing interventions. You don't want to be the parent who forgoes EI only to realize at 5-6 that you wasted tons of time not using them when they were needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Wondering if it's necessary and if it really helps?

Research shows it does. But here's the thing. You will never know because your child is an individual and you can only make one choice - either you do it or you don't. So if you do, you won't know if she would have progressed anyway and if you don't and she doesn't progress, you don't know that EI would have worked. When it was me, I figured I could better live with trying it than with not doing something and later regretting it if my child's delays didn't improve. To me, this is the real question: what can you live with.

I am not against early intervention, but I don't think there is a lot of research showing that it works for otherwise NT infants who have delays like OP describes. If you can point me to specific research would be interested! EI is an entitlement system - so while OP's child may qualify based on their testing, that does not mean that the therapies are proven.

Wondering if it's necessary and if it really helps?

Research shows it does. But here's the thing. You will never know because your child is an individual and you can only make one choice - either you do it or you don't. So if you do, you won't know if she would have progressed anyway and if you don't and she doesn't progress, you don't know that EI would have worked. When it was me, I figured I could better live with trying it than with not doing something and later regretting it if my child's delays didn't improve. To me, this is the real question: what can you live with.

Anonymous wrote:I would definitely do it for all reasons stated above. My son had speech therapy through our version of EI (also free, aka included in our tax bill) for close to two years and and has been fine since discharged at 4. My son thought the speech therapist was a grown up play date for him plus i learned a lot of strategies. Honestly, I think he probably would have been fine but it could have taken longer. Why wait if you don't need to?

I don't understand why you think he eventually would have been fine if he needed 2 years of speech to get caught up. Speech issues don't just spontaneously resolve when the kid is 8 or whatever.