I learned early on in this process of speaking out against FC/S2C/RPM that what I have to say about facilitator influence and control taps into a particularly vulnerable part of the facilitator belief system. You see, facilitators aren’t supposed to question FC-generated messages. And they certainly aren’t supposed to express doubts about FC aloud.

FC proponents are taught both overtly and covertly to presume competence in their clients, suppress doubts about their own behaviors that could (and probably do) influence letter selection, and avoid reliably controlled testing at all costs. People (like me) who’ve undergone reliably controlled testing (and believe the results) are looked at with disdain. Former facilitators are ostracized from the FC community and characterized as “bad” at best and “ableist” at worst. Speaking out about the dangers of FC can divide families and alienate colleagues and friends. I suspect that’s why more former facilitators don’t speak out publicly about their experiences.

I personally know what it’s like to hear the person who trained me in an FC workshop at the University of Maine (a so-called “master trainer” from Syracuse University) publicly denounce me as being “poorly trained.” It isn’t a pleasant feeling. And, so, there is a part of me that understands the pushback (and insults) I’ve received over the years from facilitators who’ve bought into the illusion of FC (like I once did) and, in some ways, are emotionally driven to see me as “the enemy.”

In my experience facilitators, over time, learn to be defensive, closed off to evidence that challenges their belief in FC, and quick to attack. They feel justified in lashing out against critics of FC/S2C/RPM and develop a rigid “us-against-them” mindset. They cannot (or choose not to) accept that science-based criticisms against facilitator-dependent techniques like FC/S2C/RPM are not criticisms against the individuals being subjected to their use, but of the technique itself, which is fatally flawed. From my perspective, non-speaking and minimally speaking individuals (e.g., victims of FC) deserve to be supported in their efforts to communicate with direct instruction and evidence-based methods that build independence from, not dependence on, a facilitator.

Occasionally, the comments we get here on this website and on YouTube are directed toward me specifically. Many commenters forget their diplomacy skills in their efforts to get their point across. I’m sure I’m not the only one who responds better to facts than ad hominem attacks, though this concept seems to be lost on (some) commenters. Here’s an example from September 2024:

Janyce is actively aiding bad people in taking away typed communication. My stepson types, we started hand on hand, moved to using cloth under his wrist and now only touch his elbow or shoulder. It’s him typing and always has been. Just because Janyce did a horrible thing doesn’t mean that every person and every typing supporter are doing the same. Grow the f*ck up and stop lying. She didn’t want to take full blame for her actions so she demonized an entire mode of communication. Shame on her and those who spread her bullsh*t.

Wow. There’s a lot to unpack in that statement.

Before I get to my reaction, I’ll say here that I believe most facilitators are generally good people who are ultra-protective of their belief in FC. They view their experiences with FC as transformative, miraculous even, and speak about FC/S2C/RPM with almost religious fervor. Given this, I can only imagine how upsetting it would be for an individual who has a vested interest in making FC “work” to be confronted with a story like mine. The cognitive dissonance must be huge. But, based on my own experiences and years of research into FC, I also believe—and I say this with a great deal of empathy—facilitators are misinformed and/or misguided in their beliefs and actions.

Every practicing facilitator on the planet thinks they are impervious to facilitator cueing and control—because that is, essentially, what they are taught to believe in FC workshops. I often feel that comments like the one I’ve highlighted are coping strategies for facilitators who, for whatever reasons, need to distance themselves psychologically from the idea that they, too, might be influencing or controlling letter selection. I think these comments mask a fear that they might get “discovered” as perpetuating the illusion of FC if anyone looks at their behaviors too closely. Surely, conscientious facilitators have experienced niggling doubts about their own contributions to letter selection (e.g., “I moved the client’s hand or the letter board this time, but I won’t next time”). Founder Douglas Biklen’s facilitators suspected they were influencing letter selection in 1990 but were taught to downplay or ignore their doubts. (See Rationalizations Abound: Stopping Just Shy of Knowing) Suppressing doubts and ignoring/downplaying facilitator cueing and control is integral to making FC “work.” Why else would proponent responses be so defensive, distancing, and emotionally charged?

ASHA released a statement in 2018 warning their members of the danger of using discredited/disproven/unproven techniques with their clients.

My role in the anti-FC movement seems to have been mythologized by certain factions within the pro-FC community. Perhaps I should be flattered that (some) proponents bestow upon me a power I don’t have—that is the power to influence organizations who are, apparently, filled with “bad people” into taking a public stance against FC/S2C/RPM. I have no affiliation with the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the American Association on Intellectual and Development Disabilities, the Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, or the dozens more organizations who’ve researched the topic on their own and taken a stance against facilitator-dependent techniques. (see Opposition Statements)

I know for a fact that when ASHA was taking public comments and conducting a systematic review of FC/S2C/RPM in 2018, the comments I submitted about my personal experiences with FC were not viewed by them as “evidence” but as an anecdote (as they should be). Like all critics of FC, ASHA was looking for reliably controlled studies to prove proponent claims that FC/S2C/RPM are free from facilitator influence and control. There are none. (See Systematic Reviews) Proponents seem not to understand that it’s their responsibility (not ASHA’s) to provide reliably controlled evidence of their claims that FC/S2C/RPM produces independent communication (e.g., free from facilitator influence and control). ASHA says in their statement that if such evidence becomes available, they will revisit the topic.

(Some) proponents believe that I’ve denounced FC/S2C/RPM simply because my experience with it was terrible and suggest that I should “grow the f*ck up and stop lying.” Supposedly, I “didn’t want to take full blame for my actions” so I “demonized an entire mode of communication.” For the record, I’m not against typing as a form of communication. I’m against facilitators influencing and controlling the typing of individuals through visual, auditory, and physical cueing and (overtly or covertly) supplanting their own voices for those of the non-speaking or minimally speaking individuals with whom they are working. I’ve seen firsthand the destruction otherwise well-meaning facilitators can do when they put emotion and good intentions before the evidence.

Again, I think this accusation (that I didn’t take responsibility for my actions) is a coping mechanism that seems to help make facilitators feel better about their own inaction when it comes to investigating authorship and facilitator-generated techniques. I can assure you, it’s way easier for strangers who know nothing about me (except maybe what’s been printed on the internet) to criticize the decisions I made as a facilitator in the early 1990s than it was to personally experience going through the process of learning to believe in FC, then testing it, then (eventually) dismantling that belief in FC and becoming a skeptic directly and in real time. I think most people underestimate the emotional toll it took for me to understand and accept that FC can’t work as an independent form of communication, even though I really felt, at one time, that it did.

In addition, I’m not sure what else the person would have me do to take responsibility for my actions. For those new to our website, I was a facilitator involved with a false allegations of abuse case that was featured in the 1993 documentary Prisoners of Silence. I’ll link articles relating to my story below, but the short version is that, against the advice of FC workshop leaders, I participated in reliably controlled testing designed to rule in or rule out facilitator influence and control after FC-generated allegations of abuse were brought against the family of a student that I (and other facilitators) was working with. The testing showed that I was the author of the messages, not my student. I was devastated and, even though I didn’t fully understand at the time what had happened, I apologized directly to the family for the harm I had caused and stopped using FC. In discussions about the situation with my special education director and other school personnel, it was decided that FC use would be halted at the school until reliably controlled evidence could be obtained to prove independent authorship. And, though I’m still waiting for that proof, it’s important to note that in 1991-1992, when I was involved with FC, authorship studies were still emerging. Despite this, the tests undeniably showed that facilitators, not their clients, were influencing and controlling letter selection—regardless of the content of the messages. Facilitator-generated messages are not limited to false allegations of abuse. (See Controlled Studies). In my opinion, everyone in the early 1990s should have taken a step back to review FC, not just me or the school system in which I worked, but, sadly, that did not happen enough.

Staff from the O.D. Heck Center test FC to rule in or rule out facilitator cueing and control over letter selection. (Frontline, 1993)

The O.D. Heck study (also featured in Prisoners of Silence) sticks out in my memory as being particularly influential in opening my mind to the idea that facilitators—and not their clients—were generating the FC messages. Some of the tests used in their study were similar enough to the activities I and my student participated in to help me accept that FC didn’t work in the way that I’d been taught. It mattered to me that many of the O.D. Heck facilitators were trained directly by Biklen and his staff at Syracuse University. FC didn’t work even for them.

Granted, I still had a lot to learn about the ideomotor response and other forms of cueing, but by going through controlled testing, I understood the concept of facilitator cueing in ways that most other people don’t get an opportunity to experience. Instead of condemning my actions, I’ll submit that other facilitators might consider following suit. If, like I thought, the communications are being independently produced by the client or loved one, why would testing it under reliably controlled conditions be threatening? I’d argue that if proponents want FC/S2C/RPM to be accepted as a legitimate, evidence-based form of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), then they should—voluntarily—be lining up to be tested.

I’ll also submit that almost no other experience that I’ve had made me “grow up” faster than this one. It was a difficult lesson to learn but so important that, over thirty years later, I am still talking about it. This lesson, unlike any other lesson, taught me to question the validity of claims that seem too good to be true—regardless of whether the University of Maine or Syracuse University or other academic institutes endorse its use.

I realize the commenter doesn’t actually care whether I “grow up” or not. Rather, what he and other proponents really want is for me and other critics of FC/S2C/RPM to shut up. For them, my story is an uncomfortable reminder of the harms FC can do. (See the False Allegations and Facilitator Crimes sections of our website) They’d like nothing more for critics to stop reminding the general population that FC/S2C/RPM have no scientifically rigorous evidence to support their claims and that facilitators, not individuals with complex communication needs, are most likely the ones influencing and controlling letter selection. (100% according to the reliably controlled studies).

And, because of this, I don’t intend to stop warning people about the dangers of FC/S2C/RPM or advocating for national oversight of facilitators that includes mandatory and reliably controlled testing of all who use the techniques. It’s evident to me that facilitators are ill-equipped to monitor their own behaviors. But, if, after 30+ years, proponents finally do end up conducting reliably controlled studies into FC/S2C/RPM use that demonstrates a different result than I (and hundreds of other facilitators who’ve participated in blind testing) have experienced, then I’d be happy to review those reports.

Note: The Australasian Society of Intellectual Disability (ASID) recently published an opposition statement regarding FC/RPM and, in their long version, provide a good explanation of the difference between Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) and facilitator-dependent techniques like FC and RPM. A plain language version of the statement is also available.

ASID position statement on Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method

ASID position statement on Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method (Plain language version)

Thoughts about a reader’s suggestion that I “Grow the (Beep) Up”

Facilitated Communication: a thoroughly discredited yet persistent technique

Thoughts about a reader’s suggestion that I “Grow the (Beep) Up”

Announcing a new page at FacilitatedCommunication.org: Organizations Supporting FC

Actually this is mostly about you—and (indirectly) about FC

Facilitated Communication: a thoroughly discredited yet persistent technique