Okay if you know me at all, you know that I have a three year old that still needs Speech Therapy. But I have to question, as I watch her, does she NEED speech? She has so many clear words, which is no where near where she "should be" for an almost three year old. On the other hand, she makes herself very clear. She gets across what she's wanting to get across very well. So it begs to ask the question, when she turns three, and ages out of the states system, should I continue Speech Therapy if it's available to her, or should I just say no, it's not needed? If you put her and another kid her age in the room, and you can understand my daughter over the kid that has the bigger vocabulary, is she really behind? But then is that a fair assumption? Was it just that one particular kid that couldn't make himself clear enough to understand even though he had the bigger vocabulary?
Because technically by the age of three, she should have three hundred clear words. From the age between two and three, she should go from around fifty clear words, to three hundred. So is she behind because she doesn't have three hundred clear words? I don't know! She works every day and even her Speech Therapist says she's doing great as far as updating her vocab and articulating down to the syllable, so does it constitute taking the extra resources? There are a lot of kids out there that are in worse shape than she is. So at what point do I stop taking advantage of state resources? When does she get to a point that she doesn't need Speech? I leave it to you parents out there. Does she need to continue? Or should we let her just age out? What do ya'll think?
I say that you utilize the resources you have and continue as long as you can. It can't hurt and can only help in the long run. If the state is willing to pay and provide use it.
ReplyDelete