“Axel” Raises Questions About FC in the Classroom

“Axel” is a short film produced in 2012 by Dan Habib that focuses on a 12-year-old boy with autism and the staff at Idelhurst Elementary School in Somersworth, NH. The claim is that, through the use of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Response to Intervention (RtI), social stories, visual schedules, and positive behavioral supports, Axel was able to transfer from a program that was focused on developing functional communication and behavioral skills directly into a 5th grade general education class and master the curriculum within a few months. By the end of the film, the principal of the school, Mike Quigley, reported the boy to be bilingual and bi-literate in English and Spanish, working on grade level, and excelling in his engagement with kids without disabilities. 

Two facilitators working with Axel. One holds his wrist to type, the other holds the board in the air. (from Axel, 2013 Youtube post, Dan Habib)

Sound too good to be true? Yes, it did for me as well, so I took a closer look.

This video is different from the others I have reviewed so far, as, to me, it reveals more about the staff and politics of a particular school than simply on how ineffectual Facilitated Communication (FC) is as a technique for independent communication. 

The staff seems to have banded together to “get themselves organized” and get Axel into the regular classroom. It appears there was a mandate from administration to mainstream all children, regardless of the individuals’ educational needs and the appropriateness of the setting. This, even though, purportedly, Axel himself expressed to his teachers how chaotic the regular classroom was (through facilitator-authored messages?).

The facilitator holds his hand to write with a pencil while Axel focuses on a laminated sentence strip. (from Axel, 2013 Youtube post, Dan Habib)

Certainly, Axel’s body language and non-verbal communication backs up these observations as, throughout the film, he spends a good deal of time running away from his paraprofessional into quieter places (e.g., back stage in the school’s auditorium, into a field adjacent to the playground), walking around the classroom, staring out the window, sitting or standing on the periphery of groups (e.g, in gym class and on the playground), and whistling at or turning his body away from his facilitators as they grab his hand and force him to type.

Despite this sensory overload (their words, not mine), the educators insist on placing Axel in the exact environment that causes him distress: the regular classroom and then wonder why he uses self-stimming (e.g., sniffing or playing with a laminated sentence strip) to calm himself down. Assuming the filmmaker tried to put Axel and the staff in the best possible light for the video, full immersion in a mainstreamed classroom seems a less than acceptable result and it makes me wonder what happened to Axel when the cameras were turned off or, more likely, what was edited out of the film altogether. 

A student facilitates. Axel looks at the student, not at the paper. (from Axel, 2013 Youtube post, Dan Habib)

Like other pro-FC films, the fact that FC is being used is not mentioned. Instead, FC is described by the educators both as a “communication system” and “Augmentative and Alternative Communication “ (AAC). FC is neither, since it builds dependence, not independence, on an assistant who, in all likelihood, controls the typing activity.

Twice, a title page appears on screen to claim the staff helped Axel “type independently”. The educators, and by default, the producer of the film, have an odd way of defining “independence,” since only when the facilitators hold on to his hand was Axel able to produce written responses to their questions. Quigley offers a weak explanation that an adult needs to stabilize his hand in order for him to write out words and letters (typical FC rhetoric) but in the one scene that appears legitimate, Axel successfully negotiates selecting a movie from a Netflix list on an iPad. He is able to isolate a finger for pointing, engage with the iPad, understand the icons (e.g., pictures) on the screen, and make a selection without any cuing or other interference from an assistant. These are all requisite skills for interacting with a communication device independently. Whether Axel knows his letters or how to put them together to make words and sentences is not an issue addressed in the film. Since the goals from his previous school were centered around communication and behavior skills, my guess is he does not.

This film raises many questions about FC in the classroom:

1)   Axel is shown interacting with an iPad on his own, with the motor skills to select pictures (e.g., a desired movie from Netflix). Why, then, would he need someone to hold his hand to type?

2)   In most, if not all, the scenes showing him being facilitated, Axel is not looking at the keyboard or paper. How can he type or write accurately when he is not looking? 

3)   If only trained facilitators are supposed to be practicing FC (by proponents’ own standards), then why is a student being allowed to facilitate with Axel? Did that person complete the training required to become a facilitator?

4)   How is it, as the educators in the film claim, that Axel reached grade level in a matter of months? Given Axel’s lack of attention and engagement in the classroom and with the letter board or iPad, it would take an extraordinary effort to make that happen, miraculous, even. Were the communications objectively tested to determine authorship?

5)   How is it that his mother and stepfather and the school system have a widely disparate (too widely disparate) view of Axel’s ability to communicate in writing? His parents, who seem to have a good understanding of Axel’s capabilities, report he uses non-verbal communication (e.g., pointing, taking them by the hand and leading them to what he wants) and limited vocalizations (e.g., grunts) to let them know what he wants at home. The educators claim he is reading and typing in two different languages. Could the new “communication system” have something to do with the disparity? Could Axel type out Spanish responses with a facilitator who only knew English? Could he type out English responses with a facilitator who only knew Spanish?

6)   Why was FC being used in the school system, against the recommendations of major organizations at the time with statements opposing its use: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Association for Behavior Analysis, Behavior Analysis Association of Michigan, and the New York State Health Department? (For a current list, click here.)

7)   Did the parents give informed consent for the use of FC? Before using FC with Axel, did the staff clearly explain to them that FC had no scientific basis for its claims, that organizations such as ASHA, AACAP, APA, etc. had statements opposing its use, that reliable, evidence-based tests demonstrated facilitator control due, in part, to the ideomotor response, and that there were multiple instances of false allegations of abuse made against families of individuals being subject to its use? And, were the parents informed of and given the option to choose alternative programming for their child? Given the fact that the educators were not calling their “communication system” FC, odds are they were not.

Recommended Reading:

Auerbach, David. (2015, November 12). Facilitated Communication is a Cult That Won’t Die. This discredited technique for communicating with profoundly disabled people is being pushed into public schools. Slate.

Gorman, B.J. (2011). Psychology and Law in the Classroom: How the Use of Clinical Fads in the Classroom may Awaken the Educational Malpractice Claim. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2011 (1), 29-50.