UPenn and Harvard Extension School Apparently Fooled By FC

Several readers of this blog sent me links to a recent CBS Sunday Morning YouTube video about Dan Bergmann, a young man with autism being celebrated for graduating from Harvard Extension School. While heartened to see individuals with disabilities being celebrated in the news, these readers wondered about the use of a letter board and facilitator shown in the short video.

Facilitator holds the letter board for the individual being facilitated. (From CBS Sunday Morning, 2021)

Before digging into the story further, I watched the video. It does, indeed, look like Bergmann is being subjected to Facilitated Communication, most likely in the form of Spelling to Communicate or Rapid Prompting Method, where the assistant/facilitator holds a board in the air and provides verbal or physical cuing for letter selection. The video has the following hallmarks:

1)    Imagery of a stencil-like letter board and stick used with S2C and RPM;

2)    A facilitator holding the letter board for Bergmann;

3)    Claims of unexpected literacy (e.g., at age 12, Bergmann “learned to think all at once on a single day”);

4)    Claims that autism is primarily a motor-planning problem that can be overcome by facilitator support.

It did not take much effort to find another article specifically discussing Bergmann’s use of FC as he participated in two classes at the University of Pennsylvania through the College of Liberal and Professional Studies’ Young Scholars program. Here the facilitator is described as an “interpreter”. Purportedly, Bergmann “needs a steady hand to help him concentrate his thoughts into words and keep his autism from getting in the way of communicating,” but research has shown that the use of FC does not result in independent typing. Instead, the evidence weighs heavily on the side of facilitator control. In all likelihood, the facilitator is not interpreting Bergmann’s thoughts—that’s not how FC works--but writing the messages for him.

Bergmann is reported to be able to say one thing repeatedly (e.g., Popcorn!), rapidly rub his thumbs against his fingers, loosely shake his head, and simultaneously, type out eloquent sentences. We’ve seen this in pro-FC films and documentaries as well.

In “Wretches and Jabberers,” for example, Tracy Thresher during a facilitation session repeatedly says “hurry up” while supposedly typing “I have always been very angry about my autism. I didn’t get seen as intelligent until I was out of high school.” Earlier in the film, he’s seen with his eyes shut while hitting himself in the head and screaming as the facilitator pulls his hand to the letter board with two hands to type out a message that had nothing to do with his aggressive behavior. (See Questions about “Wretches and Jabberers” here).

 In “The Reason I Jump,” a young woman, Emma, is being facilitated while she repeatedly says “No More” and plays with her Simon game. (See Katherine’s review here).

To me, it seems quite an extraordinary feat to be engaged in self-stimulation, while talking about popcorn or some other topic, and writing something completely different (e.g., eloquent passages, presumably with complete spelling and grammatical correctness). How likely is it for independent communication to occur under these circumstances? I’m guessing the chances are slim.

Generally, in FC sessions, the facilitator is not as distracted as the individual being facilitated. Instead, the facilitator focuses almost completely on the letter board or communication device and the selection of appropriate letters.

Penn and Harvard Extension School are not the only schools to be fooled by FC. Oberlin College, Whittier College, Syracuse University, University of Vermont, Cal Lutheran, University of Virginia, and others allow students to take classes and/or graduate from their programs using Facilitated Communication without regard for the high degree (100% in reliable, double-blind tests) of facilitator influence. The question, then, arises: who is actually completing the coursework?

The Lake Region Community College in New Hampshire used to have a policy disallowing the use of FC. They have since removed the statement from their website for some reason (see the blog post here), but I think it is worth repeating:

 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.” (LRCC, 2019)

I’d like to see all educational programs follow these guidelines and/or adopt reliable, evidence-based protocols to rule out facilitator influence when FC or any of its variants are in use.