The Case of the Disappearing Opposition Statement

As part of the process for adding information to the Opposition Statements section of the website, I checked websites and/or emailed organizations directly to make sure the information I had was at least up to date when the information was posted.

In talks that I’ve done, I’ve always included the Lakes Region Community College Disabilities Policy because what they had to say about FC and student completion of coursework made a lot of sense. After describing FC and quoting from the American Psychological Association’s (APA) and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s (ASHA) opposition statements, their policy stated:

The System colleges must be assured that the academic standards and competencies for a course are being met by the student when a course is taken for credit. Since it cannot be definitively demonstrated that by using facilitated communication the student, as opposed to the facilitator, has mastery of the subject matter, facilitated communication is not a reasonable or appropriate accommodation that the College is required to provide. While determination on the appropriateness of reasonable accommodations is made on a case by case basis by the Disabilities Coordinator in consultation with the instructor, the Colleges to not accept a scientifically discredited technique, such as facilitated communication, as meeting the academic standards or demonstrating student competency. In distinguishing between augmented communication and facilitated communication, in particular, the College must be satisfied that all work is being done by the student and not by an intermediary agent.” (2019)

Note: emphasis in bold mine

This statement appeared on their website, as well as on several lists of organizations opposing the use of FC. However, when I went to check their website in December 2020, the statement no longer appeared on the site. I searched again before publishing this blog post and it still is nowhere to be found.

In December, 2020, I emailed officials at the Lake Regions Community College and was told that staff there had no knowledge of the statement. They asked for verification, which I sent to them. I was assured by the officials that they review each individual on a case by case basis, using evidence-based measures, and provide appropriate accommodations. I have no reason to doubt their practices.

However, I am curious about the decision to remove the statement from their website. There has been no change in ASHA or APA position statements. In fact, ASHA renewed their position in 2018 and added Rapid Prompting Method. The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), too, came out with an updated position in 2019, following ASHA’s lead in renewing their position opposing FC and adding RPM to their list. New Hampshire does have a strong proponent-base. I wonder if they had something to do with pressuring officials to change their position? No way to tell, really, unless someone wants to offer an explanation as to why the policy just seemed to disappear into thin air.

It is disappointing, really, that the college, once in a leadership role for taking a visible stand against FC, back pedaled, but I am hoping that other educational organizations might use the policy as a template for developing their own stance against FC in all its forms. Individuals with disabilities attending college have a right to accommodations, certainly, but not to the degree (pun intended) that the facilitator is doing the work for them.

As an aside, I also contacted Maine Administrators of Services for Children with Disabilities (MADSEC) about their 2000 opposition statement. To date, after repeated emails, no one from the organization has responded. If you have information on their position regarding FC and RPM, please leave a comment below.

Recommended reading:

A Number of Organizations Caution Against Use of FC and RPM. (ASHA)

”These position statements have received field wide acceptance. Both express lack of support for the practice in question, citing an absence of high quality science that proves its efficacy.

ASHA's position statements are far from the only ones raising concerns about FC and RPM.”

Facilitated Communication: Sifting the Psychological Wheat from the Chaff (APA).

Positions on Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method (AAIDD)

Position on Facilitated Communication (ASHA)
Position on Rapid Prompting Method (ASHA)