What Schools Can Learn about S2C from the Lower Merion School District

When the Lower Merion School District (LMSD) in Pennsylvania was approached by parents who wanted their child to use a form of Facilitated Communication (FC) called Spelling to Communicate (S2C), they were faced with a dilemma. While the parents believed S2C unlocked hidden competencies and claimed it was their child’s “preferred method of communication,” the school district found there was no evidence to support proponent claims that S2C was an independent form of communication. In addition, they were concerned that S2C messages may not reflect the student’s “true voice.”

Image by Isabella and Zsa Fischer

This “difference of opinion,” as it was described in J.L., et. al. v. Lower Merion School District Civil Action No. 20-1416-KSM, eventually brought the two parties to court. The full document is available in the public record and, in my opinion, should be read by every school administrator in the U.S.

In an abbreviated explanation of the case, the plaintiffs sued under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and argued that the student was denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) because the school district did not hire a trained “communication partner” to work with him in the academic setting. Likewise, under IDEA, they claimed the school district “procedurally violated the IDEA by refusing to conduct an independent education evaluation” despite repeated requests.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs claimed the School District violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA) by refusing to allow the student to use S2C.

First, a Hearing Officer, then an appellate judge ruled in favor of the School District, finding that 

1)    the School District offered the student a FAPE and,

2)    neither 504 nor the ADA requires schools to implement an unproven, ineffective means of communication, even if it is the student’s preferred method.

The Court found the School District made two procedural violations (e.g., not filing a due process notification and failing to write IEP goals for the student’s participation in regular education classes) but ruled that the violations were “harmless” because the student had received a free and appropriate public education. 

I understand that the Plaintiffs have, again, appealed this decision.

Notwithstanding future outcomes, I think it is worth noting the actions the School District took to protect themselves from the pseudoscientific practice of S2C (as recorded in the court documents).

1.     The School District conducted research into S2C and found the following:

• No peer-reviewed research supports the legitimacy of S2C as an evidence-based methodology.

• The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has positions opposing FC and Rapid Prompting Method (RPM). S2C is a variant of RPM.

ASHA’s RPM position identifies prompt dependency and lack of scientific validity as primary concerns. It also cautions that “information obtained through the use of RPM should not be assumed to be the communication of the person with disability.”

• The State of Virginia’s Speech and Audiology Licensing Board fined the inventor of S2C, Elizabeth Vosseller, $8,000 for practicing without a license from 2004 through 2017. (The LSMD court case focused on the 2017-2018 school years). Vosseller was first trained in RPM.

• Representative School District members attended a 3-day training in S2C where their answers about S2C remained unanswered. They were told by S2C expert(s) that

a)     No specific guidelines for using boards in academic and functional settings exist.

b)     No current scientific research or data [exists] to support the use of letter boarding with a facilitated communication partner.

c)     No documentation is available to prove claims of independence with S2C because “Currently they do not have completely independent individuals.”

2.     The School District observed the student using S2C at Inside Voices (on two different occasions) and found

• The student’s spelling was at a rate not typically seen in most high school students.

• The facilitator used intonation patterns, spelled out random words during her reading of the target material, and used verbal cues (e.g. closer, go get it, left, up, down) while the student poked at a letter board.

• The student was unable to answer short-answer and multiple-choice questions from a class he was auditing when the communication did not have access to the answer key. When the communication partner was given the answer key, the responses “came out correctly.

3.     The School District allowed accommodations (e.g., gave him access to the letter board, but without a communication partner) and documented the student’s progress.

Note: the student could type independently on a keyboard but not with the “dramatic difference” his mother and the S2C experts reported.

• Throughout this process, the school documented the interventions tried and their outcomes (e.g. time spent in the regular classroom, behaviors—both positive and disruptive, academic progress).

 4. The School District evaluated the student to inform changes to his IEP.

•  The School District reevaluated the student in the process of reviewing his IEP. The student scored in the third percentile in cognitive skills, indicating that his nonverbal cognitive skills were “poorly developed and an area of weakness.” Another evaluator found that the student was “a skilled typist using his index fingers.”

 Note: The parents expressed concern about the student’s test “anxiety.” However, the school’s evaluator reported that the student “did not appear to be frustrated or demonstrate negative behaviors” during the evaluation.”

The parents hired an outside evaluator, Dr. Robbins, to conduct testing on the student. Dr. Robbins reported the student performed “so much better” with her. However, the Robbins evaluation was flawed because S2C (with the student’s mother acting as communication partner) was used during the testing, therefore breaking standardization. The Court ruled against the Plaintiffs on their request for reimbursement.

In summary, the appellate Court upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision in favor of the Lower Merion School District because

• The LMSD educational programming for the student was individualized and evidence based and the student’s IEPs “were reasonably calculated, in view of the student’s individual circumstances, to permit the student to make meaningful educational progress.”

• The LMSD researched and observed the method and (justifiably) did not think S2C a suitable—let alone the most suitable—method of communication for [the student], so it was not required to implement the S2C method.”

• School districts have “the primary responsibility for formulating the education to be accorded a handicapped child, and for choosing the education method most suitable for the child’s needs.” Even though the LSMD chose not to implement S2C, it allowed the student to use different methods of communication, such as typing and unassisted letter boarding.

As the appellate judge stated, “It is not the parents’, the Hearing Officer’s, or this Court’s role to second guess the communication methodologies the District chose to implement.”

As proponents continue to pressure school systems to adopt FC/S2C/RPM despite the lack of scientific evidence that demonstrates independence for the individuals being subjected to it, the LMSD can serve as an example to administrators and educators facing the same dilemma.

For more information about this case, see Katharine’s blog post here.