Abstract TIME magazine featured a couple treatments for autism in its May 7, 2006 issue. One article in particular of Two Schools by Claudia Wallis was especially critical of behavioral treatment. Many behavioral treatment professionals in the autism community were unhappy with the piece, and the Lovaas Institute, as well as others, decided to be proactive by responding quickly with a letter to the editor. The editor later wrote us to say he felt other letters made a better, more compelling case for ABA and so ours was not used. Below is the shortened version of the letter the Lovaas Institute sent to TIME to meet the criteria of 120 words or less set by the editors. Another version follows which is also relevant to other current public critiques. --Dr. O. Ivar Lovaas Keywords: Reply, early behavioral intervention, Discrete trial Training. ********** It's difficult enough for parents of children with autism to decipher treatment information and now Claudia Wallis' of Two Schools (May 15) has added misinformation to the equation. She quoted a 2000 study rather than recent research from 2005 and 2006 demonstrating the effectiveness of behavioral treatment and replicating my '87 study. Again, children with autism showed substantial improvement in IQ, adaptive behavior, and social skills. Rather than play on a parent's emotions or use pleasant terminology (such as being intentional), ABA holds itself to a higher standard--ongoing analysis and evaluation, normative tests and assessments, and long-term outcomes in peer-reviewed journals. This approach continues to be the best hope for the majority of children with autism. In Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, a man misrepresents himself in order to help another stay alive. Perhaps then, we should not be surprised that in TIME magazine's A Tale of Two Schools (May 7, 2006) the author must misrepresent ABA therapy in order to help another approach to autism treatment gain credibility. Critiques of behavioral treatment often come from those who purport to have cutting-edge information or a different perspective on teaching children with autism in general. However, rather than a balanced discussion, critiques all too often leave out recent research, repeat age-old stereotypes, and fail to make important distinctions. First, with over 500 scientific articles on autism and ABA between 1985 and 2006, why do authors continue to pick apart single articles without placing them in the context of the whole? For example, some cite the 2000 Smith study as an example of less impressive results for behavioral treatment. However, they fail to mention that children received an average of 25 hours of behavioral treatment rather than the average of 40 hours per week in the 1987 Lovaas study. As an analogy, imagine a student going through high school for only half the day and consider whether such a student would be prepared for college. In more current research from 2005, and one of the few studies to directly compare two treatments for autism, Jane Howard and colleagues demonstrated that behavioral treatment was far superior to a typical special education approach. Better yet, the 2005 Sallows study published data replicating the 1987 Lovaas study. In this case, 48% (11 of 23) of the children with autism, who received almost 40 hours per week of behavioral treatment for two years, attained a normal IQ and tested within the normal range on adaptive and social skills. Second, standard criticisms of ABA (creating robotic behavior, the inability to use skills outside of therapy, rote learning, unemotional and militaristic drilling of information, etc.) are placed in opposition to newer therapies that teach spontaneity and creativity in a fun, interactive environment. Unfortunately, standard criticisms of ABA are either age-old stereotypes, or fail to address the ongoing development of behavioral treatment, recorded in the literature and spanning the last 40 years. …