Thoughts about the state of FC/S2C/RPM as 2023 comes to a close
Image by Sincerely Media
As 2023 comes to a close, my inbox is filled with readers concerned that U.S. proponents (particularly under the name of Spelling to Communicate or S2C) are pushing FC-friendly agendas at the federal and state levels. This despite long-standing position statements against FC use from organizations such as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), the American Association on Intellectual Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), Association for Science in Autism Treatment, and more. (see Opposition Statements)
Proponents, it seems, aim to dictate the use of Facilitated Communication (FC)—under the guise of S2C—in school systems, despite an inability or unwillingness to produce reliably controlled studies backing up their claims of message independence. It will be interesting to see how this strategy plays out, since a Pennsylvania court has already ruled two times (once in the original trial and once on appeal) in favor of the school system, stating that outside agencies can’t dictate methodologies implemented by the school. Here are two blog posts about the PA case and one post about a potential case brewing in another state.
Science prevails in another victory for a Pennsylvania school district
What schools can learn about S2C from the Lower Merion School District
Why would a school system be so “dead set against” S2C?
Quite frequently, I meet people who’ve either never heard of FC or thought it died out in the 1990s. As followers of our website and blog understand, not only has it not died out, FC seems to be enjoying a resurgence as proponents, in an Emperor’s New Clothes kind of approach, successfully rebrand and promote it as if authorship is not in question.
Skeptics (including the co-founders of this website) are portrayed as “evil”—or, more menacingly, as being against individuals with disabilities—for merely asking proponents to back up claims that FC-generated messages are independent and free from facilitator influence or control. Proponents, it seems, are not interested in the science disputing FC. In fact, one of the facilitators in the pro-FC/S2C movie “Spellers” blatantly states this. (See A Review of the Movie Spellers: a Documercial for Spelling to Communicate) Attempts by critics to convince proponents of the need to test FC under reliably controlled conditions (by pointing out issues of cueing, prompt dependency, and potential harms like false allegations of abuse or facilitator crimes) fail to shift their belief in FC one iota. Proponents’ anecdotes and testimonials may give readers an insight into why facilitators are attracted to the idea of FC (possibly as a coping strategy) but, sadly, anecdotes and testimonials are not the right tools to answer questions about authorship.
Modern proponents aggressively promote the idea that testing FC/S2C/RPM under reliably controlled conditions or questioning facilitator behavior is committing “epistemological violence” against individuals with complex communication needs. This (foundational) pseudoscientific/anti-scientific mindset is well-documented in published articles and media coverage from early in the FC-movement. Here are just a few I highly recommend:
Prior, Margot and Cummins, Robert. (1992). Questions about Facilitated Communication and Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Vol. 22 (2); 331-337.
Green, Gina; Shane, Howard C. (Fall, 1994). Science, Reason, and Facilitated Communication. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, vol. 19(3), 151-72.
Jacobson, J.W., Mulick, J.A., Schwartz, A.A. (1995, September). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience. Science working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 50 (9), 750-765.
Note: See more articles documenting the history of FC listed in the Systematic Reviews and Critiques of FC sections of this website. Many of these articles are left off pro-FC websites.
Proponents have (successfully, it seems) rebranded FC time and again throughout the years. As we move into yet another year where FC is still being practiced, there (still) is no reliably controlled evidence that proves that FC meets the criteria for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (e.g., science-based methods and techniques that allow individuals with complex communication needs to express thoughts and ideas independently and without facilitator influence or control). I believe it is important for researchers, skeptics and critics of FC to continue focusing on facilitator behaviors that interfere with letter selection. These include verbal, physical, and auditory cues that may or may not be visible to the naked eye. (FMI about cueing, see An FC Primer).
Many people have been fooled by the illusion of FC/S2C/RPM. It’s natural for parents, teachers, caregivers, and other professionals, as people who care about and advocate for individuals with complex communication needs, to want FC/S2C/RPM to work. In fact, a study by Wegner, Fuller and Sparrow titled Clever Hands: Uncontrolled Intelligences in Facilitated Communication indicates that a belief that FC could work increases the chances that it will work in those individuals. This echoes a 1998 study by Burgess, Krisch, Shane, Niederauer, Graham and Bacon called Facilitated Communication as an Ideomotor Response. (See Ideomotor Response). But that’s why scientific inquiry is so important. The only reliable way to rule in or rule out facilitator influence and control (e.g, facilitator cueing that, often inadvertently, determines letter selection) is testing where the facilitator is blinded to test protocols. Sadly, this is the one type of testing that proponents refuse to embrace. (See Taking Shortcuts and Controlled Studies).
So, as we move into 2024, I urge our readers to remain vigilant and to continue to question facilitator-supported techniques (despite innovative ways proponents use to disguise the fact they’re using FC). We’ve included an ever-growing list of names for FC (or techniques/methods they’ve co-opted) on the home page of our website, but, I’ve added them here as well. I suspect we’ve left some off the list and/or there will be new ones to add in the coming year.
Supported Typing, Saved by Typing, Facilitated Communication Training, Informative Pointing, Spelling/Communication Therapy, Spellers Method, Partnered Typing, Rapid Prompting Method, Spelling to Communicate, Assisted Typing, Letter Boarding, Supported Decision Making, Communication for Education, Talking Fingers, Mouth to hand learning, Hand-over-hand, speaking with eyes, Motor Communication, Intuitive Pointing, Spelling on an iPad, Motor-based communication techniques.
I believe it’s up to proponents (e.g., the people making the extraordinary claims) to prove that their technique(s) produce independent communications. Until, then, the presumption should be that FC-generated messages are (perhaps inadvertently) controlled by facilitators and, therefore, do not represent the thoughts and ideas of those being subjected to its use. (See the Voice Questions and Concerns about FC section of our website.)
Thank you to all who read our blog posts, make use of our website, and support our efforts. Throughout the year, we’ve received emails alerting us to FC/S2C/RPM related events, articles, and media releases. Often, your questions or insights are the inspiration for blog posts. We appreciate your participation as we continue educating people about FC, a thoroughly discredited but persistent technique.
Looking forward to interacting with you in 2024. Happy New Year!