Why would a school system be so “dead set against” S2C?
In a June 6, 2023 article, reporter Eric Wilkinson interviewed the father of a 17-year-old special needs son about an Edmonds, Washington school’s decision not to allow the use of Spelling to Communication (S2C). The father, who’d learned about S2C from JB Handley’s book “Underestimated” (see review here), reportedly was “really puzzled why they are so dead set against it.”
Image by Evan Dennis
From the father’s perspective, it is easy to see why he’d be confused. He’s been told by proponents of S2C that holding a plastic letter board in the air will unlock hidden literacy in his child. Rather than working at a third-grade level, his son, with the father’s “support” as facilitator, is now considering going to Harvard. The father claims his son, now free from his “communication cage,” is writing poetry and “way more advanced than we or anybody has ever given him credit for.” What parent wouldn’t want that for their non-speaking or minimally speaking autistic child?
But, from a school district’s perspective, there is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to endorsing S2C.
First, and foremost, because S2C, like Facilitated Communication (FC) before it, relies on an assistant, also known as a “facilitator” or “communication partner,” there are concerns the facilitator might influence or control letter selection through physical, verbal, and/or visual cues. In S2C, some of these cues appear inadvertent (e.g., moving the board in the air) and some of these cues appear more deliberate (e.g., hand signals, changes in vocal inflections, head nods), but all of them influence letter selection to one degree or another. Proponents consider the typed messages “independent” regardless of the degree to which the facilitator “supports” the communications. Because facilitator “support” (e.g., cuing) is integral to how S2C “works,” school officials could—and should—be concerned that the words generated in this way might not be those of their students. (See An FC Primer)
Second, there are no reliably controlled studies that back up proponent claims the messages obtained using S2C are truly independent and free from facilitators’ physical, visual, or auditory cues. In 2019, an article titled “Rapid Prompting Method and Autism Spectrum Disorder: Systematic Review Exposes Lack of Evidence,” sought to examine the effectiveness of Rapid Prompting Method (RPM). S2C is a variant of RPM,* so the findings could, potentially, apply to S2C as well. Unfortunately, the authors found “no studies met the inclusion criteria, resulting in an empty review that documents a meaningful knowledge gap.” They called for controlled trials of RPM and elaborated on the “striking similarities” between RPM and FC.
It is not surprising that S2C authorship studies do not exist. Proponents of FC/S2C/RPM are taught to “presume competence” and avoid testing for authorship (e.g., facilitator cuing) under reliably controlled conditions.
The facilitator considers letter selection “independent,” even though she cues the student with her finger to select the “e” on a plastic stencil letter board. (WHYY, 2022)
But educators tasked with providing their students with a “reasonable duty of care” (See Gorman et al., 2011) want to make sure their students, not the facilitator(s), are achieving mastery of concepts being taught. Until or unless facilitator control is ruled out with S2C, educators are right to be cautious of any claims that, anecdotally, may appear to support its use.
Third, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and, indeed, the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction require that methods used with special education students be supported by “scientifically based research.” (see Special Education WAC and Federal IDEA)
Chapter 392-172A WAC Provision of Special Education Services uses the IDEA’s definition of scientifically based research:
“Research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs.”
This includes research that:
a. employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;
b. involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
c. relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators;
d. is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within condition or across condition controls;
e. ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and
f. has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.
This concept was tested in an S2C court case involving the Lower Merion School District and, in part, the “inventor” of S2C, Elizabeth Vosseller, and her trained facilitators. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the S2C group was unable to provide the school’s representatives with direct research on S2C. In addition, a trained representative of the group admitted that none of their clients had reached a level of independence (e.g., requiring no assistance from a facilitator). Further, video documentation of S2C sessions with the student provided by the parents and the S2C group showed facilitator cuing that ruled out claims of independent communication.
The court ruled in favor of the school system (once in the original case, and then again on appeal), stating:
In sum, Plaintiff’s Section 504 and ADA claims arise out of allegations that he was denied access to his education, not to the school; accordingly, his claims arise out of denial of a FAPE [Free Appropriate Public Education]. But the District offered A.L. a FAPE, so the claims fail. And even if the claims were not FAPE based, they would nevertheless fail because neither Section 504 nor the ADA requires schools to implement an unproven, ineffective means of communication, even if it is the student’s preferred method. (emphasis mine)
Unless proponents have conducted studies since then that meet the IDEA’s definition of scientifically based research, the Washington school district has good reason to be skeptical of claims about S2C’s success. (Please send us a link if you know of any rigorously controlled studies that validate FC/S2C/RPM).
Fourth, educators adopting S2C for their students do so in opposition of recommendations from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD). Concerns expressed by these organizations include:
Lack of scientific evidence supporting its validity
Concerns regarding facilitator authorship
Potential to “displace efforts to access scientifically valid communication modes
Similarities to FC, a discredited technique
Prompt dependency
Lost time and money that cannot be retrieved
Other potential harms (e.g. false allegations of abuse)
ASHA’s statement also discusses their members’ own legal and ethical responsibilities and risks in adopting unproven and/or ineffective techniques. ASHA members are “obliged to ‘provide services or dispense products only when benefit can be reasonably expected’ and not do harm.”
And, while we believe that most facilitators, like the father featured in Wilkinson’s news story, are well-intentioned, we also believe that good-intentions are not evidence that S2C works nor do they prevent facilitators from (inadvertently) doing harm. (See Opposition statements)
In sum, the current hype around S2C, with the release of JB Handley’s book, “Underestimated,” and movies like “The Reason I Jump” and “Spellers,” echoes the frenzied adoption of FC in the early 1990s here in the U.S. (earlier in Australia), where thousands of parents, caregivers, educators, and professionals alike uncritically adopted the technique. (Mulick, Jacobson, and Schwartz, 1995)
Granted, it is impossible to determine a student’s communication skills or academic abilities from watching a video or movie online. That should be left to professionals trained in evidence-based practices in their field of expertise. But the father’s anecdotes about unexpected literacy skills and leaps in academic ability are hallmarks with FC/S2C/RPM use and should raise red flags for the educators charged with the student’s care.
Given all the documented concerns about FC/S2C/RPM (See Critiques of FC), any assessment, going further—not just for this student, but any student being considered for its use—should include determining how much, if any, the facilitator is influencing or controlling the messages obtained while using S2C. This can be accomplished by blinding facilitators from test protocols in a carefully controlled environment overseen by an independent party. Until then, the school system is right to be reticent about adopting S2C.
As reasonable a request as authorship testing is from the school system’s perspective, it is, I fear, unlikely to happen. Proponents are, for some reason, “dead set” against any tests designed to rule in or rule out facilitator control during the letter selection activities.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out if it reaches the courts.
As an aside, I wrote to the reporter directly, but, as of the date of this blog post, received no reply.
References/Recommended Reading:
Gorman, B.J., Wynne, C.J., Morse, C.J., Todd, J.T. (2011). Psychology and Law in the Classroom: How the Use of Clinical Fads in the Classroom may Awaken the Educational Malpractice Claim. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2011 (1), 29-50.
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.
Schlosser, R.W., Hemsley, B., Shane, H. et al. (2019).Rapid prompting method and autism spectrum disorder: Systematic review exposes lack of evidence. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 6, 403–412.
*Note: Elizabeth Vosseller, “inventor” of S2C, trained under Soma Mukhopadyay, “inventor” of RPM. To read more about Soma, as documented in Portia Iverson’s book “Strange Son,” check out these blog posts:
Strange Science in Iverson’s “Strange Son”
Truth Will Out: Review of Portia Iverson’s “Strange Son”
Reviews of the Lower Merion School District S2C case can be found here:
Science prevails in another victory for a Pennsylvania school system
What schools can learn about S2C from the Lower Merion School District